TIME Last Week Tonight

Watch John Oliver Use Free Lunch to Remind Fashion CEOs That Sweatshops Are Bad

Extremely cheap meat, anyone?

On Last Week Tonight, John Oliver turned his gimlet eye on fashion (a.k.a. fun you can buy).

Americans buy roughly 64 items of clothing per person per year, according to Oliver. That fashion habit comes thanks to the low prices available at fast-fashion retailers like H&M, Zara and Forever 21 — nationwide outfitters that, according to Oliver, allow “Midwestern tweens to dress like fortysomething alcoholics attending the funeral of a Tel Aviv nightclub owner.”

But there’s another dark side to cheap clothing, according to Oliver. When H&M sells a dress for $4.95 — which Oliver notes was 7¢ more expensive than a DVD of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past — and yet the CEOs of H&M and Zara are some of the richest men in the world, it’s clear something is awry. On Last Week Tonight, Oliver took fast-fashion companies, including Walmart and Gap, to task for the fact that sweatshops and child labor are still commonly used to manufacture high-street clothing.

Then, for a lesson in manufacturing oversight, Oliver kindly sent extremely cheap lunches of indeterminate origin to the CEOs of fashion companies that employ cheap labor.

Read next: John Oliver: ‘Thank F–k There Weren’t Camera Phones’ When I Started Out

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

MONEY Advertising

The True Purpose of Heineken Light’s New Money-Back Guarantee

Heineken Light

It's easy to make a promise when you're pretty sure no one will ever take you up on it.

Heineken Light just introduced quite an impressive-sounding guarantee, in which customers will get their money back if they think that it’s not the best-tasting light beer on the market.

The new guarantee is being promoted with a couple of commercials featuring Neil Patrick Harris. The humor in the one 15-second spot embedded below stems from the fact that Harris isn’t quite sure how anyone would actually get a refund.

“Not me, I won’t” give you your money back, the actor and Oscars host says in the commercial. “Someone will give you your…” he stammers and then stops, before clarifying, “someone at Heineken, I’m guessing,” while looking around bewildered. In other words, he has no clue how the money-back guarantee would work in real life. Ha!

If you’re interested, have a look at the ad yourself:

What’s funny in a different way about this commercial is that the ad brings to light how virtually no consumers understand the nitty-gritty of money-back guarantees—mainly because almost no one ever gets their money back from them.

It’s easy for Heineken to make this promise concerning its product, because people simply “won’t return the beer — too much hassle and humiliation,” Kit Yarrow, consumer psychologist and frequent Money.com contributor explained via email. “The whole point of the ad is to make a big statement about quality/taste — guarantees are one of the strongest possible ways to demonstrate confidence. Heineken cleverly reduced the ‘huckster’ quality of a money-back guarantee by adding a dribble of irony and self-mockery through Neil Patrick Harris’ delivery.”

Money-back guarantees have been around for decades. An old Journal of Retailing study succinctly sums up a few of the key reasons why stores and manufacturers roll them out, especially when it comes to newer, higher-end products:

Such a guarantee may increase a retailer’s profits. They may increase the sales volume by encouraging shoppers to try new products. In addition, they may allow the retailer to charge higher prices because the reduction in risk from the product’s being a poor match with their tastes may increase a consumer’s willingness to pay.

Overall, these guarantees tend to provide far more benefit to retailers than they do for consumers. They’re the “commercial equivalent of a date pulling out his or her wallet with no intention of paying,” as a colleague at Time.com once put it.

It’s not just retailers and product manufacturers that make use of money-back guarantees as a means to instill confidence and drum up business. A small Canadian newspaper just introduced a money-back guarantee for subscribers, while a pastor in Pennsylvania recently told his congregation that he’d be happy to give donations to the church back to anyone who doesn’t feel blessed.

“We’ve never had one person ask for their money back, which means that God is true to his word and that we’re seeing the blessings of God being poured out in people’s lives,” said the pastor, Robbie McLaughlin of Hope City Church in Harrisburg.

It’s hard to say how many people take companies up on their money-back guarantees because this information is rarely shared with the public, if it’s tracked at all. Walmart introduced a much-heralded fresh produce money-back guarantee in 2013. But as one retail insider noted, it’s somewhat of an empty promise, because the likelihood of anyone employing the guarantee for a refund is small: “How many customers are going to return to Walmart and stand in a customer service line to return a $3 produce item?”

Some money-back guarantees come with substantial fine print, as well as loopholes that can make it extra difficult to get your money back. For instance, a MousePrint.org study on the money-back guarantees highlighted how Federal Express’s promise was undercut by a line of fine print explaining the “guarantee can be suspended, modified or revoked at our sole discretion without prior notice to you.”

One of the best-known money-back guarantees comes from Hampton Hotels, which has had such a guarantee for more than a quarter-century, and which claims to have given away “millions of dollars in free room nights” over the years to guests who weren’t fully satisfied with their stays. Even with those refunds factored in, the company says the guarantee has been great for business. One reason is that most people with complaints “merely wanted the management to know about the problems,” according to a company press release celebrating the guarantee’s 25th anniversary, and they didn’t actually ask for their money back. Most importantly, the guarantee has served as “key driver of incremental business for the brand, with about 75 percent of all hotel guests aware of the offer and about half reporting that it has some influence on their hotel choice.”


5 Secrets Stores Don’t Want You to Know About Their ‘Deals’

Customers shop at the J.C. Penney Co. store inside the Glendale Galleria shopping center in Glendale, California.
Patrick T. Fallon—Bloomberg via Getty Images Customers shop at the J.C. Penney Co. store inside the Glendale Galleria shopping center in Glendale, California.

Want to know the real reasons they can offer such great prices?

Who doesn’t love a bargain? The highlight of a shopping trip can be scooping up something with a slashed-through price or a big “sale” sticker on the shelf.

But stores have gotten increasingly sophisticated about shoring up their profit margins in a climate where people just aren’t spending the way they used to, so those discounts and deals aren’t always what they seem. Here’s how five big chains make you think you’re getting a steal.

JC Penney: Department stores have learned that, to push customers’ buttons, they have to offer whopping discounts. But what some of them do to make the math work is to actually raise prices before a sale, so markdowns are pretty similar to the original, non-sale prices. When JC Penney backed off its failed “no discounts” approach in 2013, CEO Mike Ullman told investors that being competitive “means initially marking up our goods to sufficient levels to protect our margins when the discount or sale is applied.”

To be fair, JC Penney isn’t the only discount store that practices this sleight-of-hand. A CBS affiliate in California investigated Kohl’s with hidden cameras and found that some prices were marked up by as much as $100. “One twin sheet set was listed at 50 percent off the original price of $89.99. But inside the plastic zipper, the earlier price tag shows $49.99, indicating the current sale is only $5 savings from the original tag,” the report says.

Outlet stores: While people have the perception of outlet stores as a great place to snag a deal on a designer coat with a crooked seam or last season’s hot fashions, the truth is that today, outlet stores pretty much operate as their own separate brands. The vast majority of stuff in those stores never so much as touched a rack at the name-brand version of the store. An anonymous outlet buyer tells LearnVest that as much as 90% of outlet merchandise was never made to be sold at a non-outlet store. Not only can this lead to lower quality in outlet-only merchandise, but it also means the so-called full price basically is a made-up number.

T.J. Maxx/Marshall’s: A recent Fortune magazine investigation looked at how parent company TJX Companies’ highly secretive business practices make customers at these sister brands feel like they’re on a “treasure hunt” while raking in the profits. Like outlet stores, these brands profit by having name-brand clothes made especially for them. Those Ralph Lauren sweaters? Odds are they never saw the inside of a Ralph Lauren or department store. (The article mentions Ralph Lauren specifically, but they’re not the only one.) The stores also stock trendy items designed to sell out quickly and often don’t carry very many of the really high-end items shoppers seek out, creating a sense of urgency for customers to snap up something they like before it’s gone.

Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart’s reputation is for the lowest prices anywhere, but customers who don’t shop around could actually find themselves paying more for their everyday purchases. Since discount retailers constantly tweak their prices, a customer who shops on auto-pilot rather than comparison-shopping could find themselves paying more for an item that used to be the better deal. Case in point: A 2012 Bloomberg Industries study found that rival Target edged out the self-proclaimed low-price leader. “Prices at Target were 0.46 percentage point cheaper than Wal-Mart this month. That means for every $100, Target was 46 cents less expensive,” the report says. Of course, this particular study is a few years old, and 46 cents isn’t a lot of money by any stretch, but this example goes to show how a store’s slogan is still no substitute for shopping around.

Target: The blog Consumerist has a whole tag dedicated to pricing discrepancies at the nation’s second-biggest discounter, full of reader-submitted photos of things like “value packs” of multiple items that actually cost more than buying two or more of the items separately would cost. This “deal” on disposable diapers offers a $5 gift card if customers buy two packages, but a sharp-eyed reader noticed that the promotional price per package was actually $2.50 more than the regular price sticker still on the shelf. And while buying bigger quantities usually means a lower unit price, coffee drinkers at this Target would be better off buying two smaller 12-ounce bags instead of an ostensibly more economical 24-ounce bags.

Read next: The Easiest Way to Deal With Annoying Online Shopping Returns

Listen to the most important stories of the day.

MONEY Travel

Say ‘Buh-Bye!’ to Skymall: In-Flight Catalog Files for Bankruptcy

Tchotchke retailer Skymall and parent company Xhibit Corp. have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

MONEY Shopping

Customers Desert 3 Big-Name Retailers

Some very high-profile retailers were either part of this week’s bankruptcy news or having to admit some very expensive mistakes.

MONEY Shopping

Why All Those Great Holiday Deals Aren’t Really Great Deals

deflated balloon saying "Sale Now On"
MONEY (photo illustration)—Kutay Tanir/Getty (string); Adrian Turner/Alamy (balloon)

Sale prices are faker than ever this holiday season, as retailers openly admit that no one buys items at the ridiculously inflated "regular" or "suggested" amounts listed on price tags.

When seemingly everything is always on sale, is anything really on sale?

That’s a question that any savvy, value-oriented shopper must ask from time to time—and especially during the annual holiday shopping season frenzy, when it’s routine to see entire stores discounted by 40% or 50%. When such markdowns are a dime a dozen, who is foolish enough to actually buy anything at full price?

The answer could very well be no one. Something called “price anchoring” is a widely employed tactic in the retail world. Basically, the concept involves the establishment of a high price anchor, which locks into place a perception of value. You’ve probably seen tens of thousands of these anchors, in the form of “list,” “regular,” “original,” “suggested,” or “compare to” amounts shown on retailer websites or price tags. Anchor prices are set intentionally high, not with the idea that consumers will actually pay the inflated prices, but so that the retailer can create the perception of a tremendous deal when the item is inevitably placed “on sale.”

For example, picture a sweater listed with an original price of $100. When it’s placed “on sale” for $50, that seems like quite a deal—a far, far better deal than if the original price were listed at $55 or $60. All along, however, the store selling these sweaters has been planning on getting around $50 apiece for them, and it would probably make a profit even if it sold them for $25 each—which the store surely will during after-Christmas sales.

There’s nothing new about price anchoring. What is new—and pretty darn galling among consumers who expect more pricing transparency—is that in today’s promotion-heavy retail world, “original” prices appear to be getting exponentially more inflated. What’s more, retailers aren’t even pretending that a single customer ever paid its “regular” or “original” prices for anything.

In a new New York Times column, Farhad Manjoo wades into this murky world, trying to figure out how shoppers can evaluate whether or not a deal is a deal when seemingly everything is presented as one. What he reports, among other things, is that this season in particular has seen an “explosion of less-than-stellar deals advertised on the web,” in which there’s really nothing special about all but a very few of the sale prices available on Black Friday and other supposedly amazing days for bargains.

While nearly all retailers engage in the practice of inflating list prices more or less with the sole purpose of making discounts seem more impressive, a Macy’s spokesperson openly admitted that it came up with its original prices “based on many different factors, including the cost of the item, overhead, benefits we offer … as well as our ability to offer the item at a lower price during sale events.” Macy’s also pointed out some fine print on its website alerting shoppers of the following:

“Regular” and “Original” prices are offering prices that may not have resulted in actual sales, and some “Original” prices may not have been in effect during the past 90 days.

Holiday season sales and discounts are presented as being very special, but in fact there’s often nothing special about them—because in all likelihood, the only purchases occur when these items are “on sale.” If a price exists that no one ever pays, it shouldn’t be referred to as a “regular” or “original” price. It could be described by another term: a fake price.

There was a lot of discussion about the topic of fake pricing back in early 2012, when J.C. Penney tried to shake up its business model, in which more than 99% of its sales were below list price, and items were routinely marked down by 50% or 60%. J.C. Penney’s attempt to get rid of such extreme discounting and offer fair prices from the get-go failed miserably, at least partly because shoppers are compelled to buy more when retailers use the ruse of inflated price anchoring. And now we’re left in a situation in which sales are ubiquitous, both sale and original prices are arguably more meaningless than ever, and it’s never been more difficult to tell when a deal is actually a deal.

To some extent, shoppers seem to be aware of all of this. Some of the reason that Black Friday purchases were down this year is that the majority of consumers felt that Black Friday sales are meaningless because they assumed—rightly so—that there would be “more sales throughout the holidays.”

MONEY Pick from a Pro

Food Lion Parent Delhaize Faces Down the Big-Box Challenge

Delhaize Group, the Belgian parent of the Food Lion grocery chain, has struggled. But updating its image and offerings could be a big boost, says this fund manager.

The Pro: Jonathan Matthews, manager of the T. Rowe Price International Growth & Income Fund.

The Fund: T. Rowe Price International Growth & Income Fund T. ROWE PRICE INTL GR & INC FD TRIGX 0.6% seeks out shares of large, under-priced companies around the world. Under Matthews’ tenure, which began in 2010, the fund has beaten two-thirds of its peers over the past three years.

The Pick: Delhaize Group DELHAIZE GROUP DEG 5.32% . Based in Belgium, the retailer operates grocery chains in eight countries. U.S. operations include more than 1,100 Food Lion stores, as well as smaller chains like Hannaford and Bottom Dollar Food.

With low margins and little customer loyalty, the grocery business has never been easy. Then add in a sluggish economy that’s hurt value-oriented consumers. Then toss in stiff competition from giant box stores such as Wal-Mart WAL-MART STORES INC. WMT 0.64% and Costco COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION COST 0.66% , and it’s no surprise that Delhaize — whose U.S. operations make up about 60% of its $21 billion in annual sales — has been struggling of late.

In 2012, the company closed 126 U.S. stores and last year replaced its chief executive. The upheaval has taken a toll on its stock price. The grocer’s shares trade about 3% below their level five years ago. Meanwhile, the rest of the market has more than doubled.


Matthews is quick to acknowledge Delhaize’s woes. But he thinks investors may be overreacting.

Not in dire straits.

For starters, while some retailers — think Best Buy BEST BUY BBY 1.01% and Barnes & Noble BARNES & NOBLE BKS 1.17% — are fighting for their lives, that’s not an immediate concern for grocers like Food Lion.

Moreover, with the stock having logged such poor performance, a merely modest improvement in profits could boost the company’s shares. “It’s priced for no growth,” Matthews says, “when two-thirds of the business” — Food Lion — “is underperforming its business model.”

It’s no secret that many types of retailers have been decimated by online players such as Amazon. But grocers are different. Unlike books and DVD players, groceries can’t be stored for months on end in remote warehouses. What’s more buyers are used to being able to inspect foodstuffs — squeezing the avocados and melons and feeling apples for bruises — before they buy. That means at least so far online grocery delivery has been largely a niche urban phenomenon. While prices can be competitive, inconveniences like annual membership fees and minimum order sizes remain. “It’s much harder to do food online, especially fresh food.” says Matthews.

Facing a big box challenge.

Still, grocers are facing that other big retail threat – the big box store. Wal-Mart is often cited as the nation’s largest grocer. Target, although less successful, has also gotten in on the act. While competition from those two would make life difficult for any chain of stores, grocers face the additional problem that big box stores don’t necessarily need groceries to generate big profits on their own. These competitors might be happy just to have their food aisles lure customers in to buy other stuff.

So has Wal-Mart hurt Food Lion’s sales? Sure. But Wal-Mart has been at it for more than 20 years, and Food Lion is still here. While Matthews acknowledges it’s tough to match Wal-Mart’s prices, Food Lion doesn’t necessarily need to. It’s 1,100 stores scattered across the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic states tend to be more convenient than their big box rivals — typically located close to downtowns, rather than out on the highway. That means Food Lion probably has lost shoppers who make a once-a-week trip to stock up.

On the other hand not everyone wants to drive half an hour every time they run out of butter or ketchup. Then they go to Food Lion, according to Matthews. “These are more convenience-store like,” he says. It’s an advantage that Food Lion itself has sought to play up in clever television ads.

Leveraging its existing customer base.

Of course, merely holding the line against Wal-Mart won’t be enough. The company has to find a way to grow too. Matthews believes it can. The strategy won’t necessarily be opening new stores, but wringing more money out of its existing ones.

One of Food Lion’s problems, Matthews argues, is that during the 2000s, the company took too much money out of its U.S. stores, essentially milking them in order to invest in its overseas operations. Ultimately, the strategy didn’t generate the hoped-for profits, while the U.S. stores grew “stodgy,” in Matthew’s words.

“They have an old fashioned assortment, and they have far too many products. They need to modernize, and they need to focus on the products that actually sell well,” he says. But he’s optimistic. “The challenge is to get people to spend just a few more dollars in the store.” He says. “It’s not easy, but it’s not that difficult.”

Food Lion seems to have taken that kind of criticism to heart. According to one of Delhaize’s own recent investor presentations, sales per square foot in Food Lion stores amounted to $7.90 in 2013, up nearly 6% from $7.50 in 2010. But — as if to underscore the room for improvement — the company also pointed out that a group of rivals including Wal-Mart and Publix managed $10.20 of sales per square foot.

In May, Food Lion unveiled what it calls its “Easy, Fresh, and Affordable” initiative – essentially a plan to overhaul its stores, starting with 29 Wilmington, N.C., locations in 2014 and to improve its product line. These updates, according to the Charlotte Business Journal, will include a “fresh garden cooler,” grouping organic and gluten free products together, and focusing on trendier items like premium coffee and Greek yogurt.

Food Lion also tweaked its familiar logo (while keeping the distinctive old-timey lion) to provide “a more modern look for customers,” according the chief executive’s statement.

Of course, hurdles remain. Not least is Delhaizes’s non-U.S. operations, where the turn-around strategy isn’t as clear cut. The head of the company’s 850-store Belgium arm departed in May, followed in short order by an announcement that the company is considering shuttering 14 stores there and laying of 2,500 workers in an effort to cut costs. Meanwhile, Delhaize also recently sold its Bulgarian operations, and reached a deal to sell its 39 stores in Bosnia & Herzegovina.

With its stock at $16.65, Delhaize trades at a price/earnings ratio of 11.3, based on estimated 2015 profits. That compares to about 13.1 for Ahold, the Dutch supermarket company which owns Stop & Shop, and 14.7 for Wal-Mart.

Matthews doesn’t have a specific price target for Delhaize. But so long as management makes good on its plan to boost sales and profits, he thinks the stock could trade “towards the rest of the market.” A multiple of 15, inline with the S&P 500 index, suggest a price of $22.

TIME retailers

Yep, RadioShack Is Still Doing Terribly

That well-received Super Bowl ad might end up being the only successful endeavor by RadioShack in 2014. The struggling electronics retailer posted another huge loss in the first fiscal quarter, with both overall and same-store sales plummeting.

RadioShack generated just $737 million in the first quarter, down from $848 million a year ago. Same-store sales were down 14 percent due to decreased foot traffic and underperformance in mobile sales. The company’s net loss was $98 million, more than triple the $28 million loss during the same period last year.

The retailer has faced headwinds for years, but RadioShack’s problems have escalated as consumers have grown more accustomed to buying electronics online through sites like Amazon. RadioShack CEO Joseph Magnacca said in a release that the company will reverse its fortunes by expanding its line of concept stores and launching new, exclusive products.

RadioShack said earlier this year it’s planning to close more than 1,000 of its U.S. locations, but in its earnings report the company said it now plans to close just 200 this year.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com