My post Friday about WaMu’s offer to give $100 to people who opened a new account generated some really interesting comments and brought up a question that often arises for bargain hunters like you and me. When does taking advantage of a deal become unethical?
With the WaMu deal, Pam said:
I agree that it is somewhat against my ethics to only sign up and not give the bank a fair shot at earning your trust and business–I wouldn’t sign up only for the bonus without honestly giving them a try.
Judy went a step farther:
Whether it followed WaMu’s guidelines or not, it is taking advantage of a situation – stealing.
Other readers said taking the $100 was fine, like Louise:
It is NOT stealing…WaMu offered to give him the money.
Pere applauded Glenn’s decision:
Taking advantage is the American Way. It’s also very shrewd. Quite commendable, actually.
Ethics and bargain hunting come up often. I easily thought of two more situations that leave room for customers to “take advantage” or “scam a company,” depending on your perspective. Chain drugstores frequently offer $25 or $30 to transfer a prescription. Is it unethical to continually transfer the prescription from one chain to another?
If you shop at Costco, you know that the warehouse has a very generous return policy, including a 90-day no questions asked policy for electronics. Is it unethical to purchase a TV or other new gadget if you are not entirely convinced you are going to keep it, but use Costco’s return policy to test out the product?
[poll id=”12″]
Welcome to Bargain Babe! I’m Mara, and I’m so glad you’re here. I am an obsessive bargain hunter and penny pincher, and I am determined to live a full life without EVER paying full price. 
Didn’t banks offer toasters to open an account with them in the past? It’s no different now. WaMu (or whomever is making the offer) must know that there will be some gaming to their system. But they probably know that a majority will stick with them after as well. At the point where it’s no longer profitable for WaMu (or Costco) they will change their policies.
So long as you aren’t giving fraudulent information to open an account then you aren’t stealing.
WaMu’s offer is no different from a bookstore or restaurant offering a buy-one-get-one-free offer. They’re spending money to try to get regular customers. There is nothing unethical about taking them at their word.
On the other side of the coin, what about business that sign up customers with offers of service that is temporarily free or at a reduced rate, then start adding charges as soon as the trial period is over. Is that unethical?
I say that neither of these situations is unethical. As long as both sides follow the rules and know what can be expected, it’s just business. Everybody is entitled to play the game to their own advantage
This can get very philosophical. It may be a gray area for some, but I can see how one little “chink” leads to darker grays until they become black. If you have one, use your conscience, and I’ll use mine.
Here’s another aspect – How long would you have to keep your WaMu account open for it to remain ethical? One month? 6 Months? Two years?
Or, is it unethical to change your savings account to a different bank if their rates changed? If ING goes to 1.2% is it ok to switch to HSBC at 1.6%?
I think the Costco example has more of a grey area because people are depreciating a product before they return it. Could you maybe buy a TV, for example, watch the superbowl then return it so you don’t have to pay for it? That does seem sketchy. But what if you bought it and find that the picture wasn’t up to your expectations? I think Costco considers the possibility of abuse into their program knowing that it probably brings more customers in overall than those that abuse it.
Based on the above responses, it would seem to depend on one’s personal ethics, as well as keeping a pragmatic view of each situation. If one feels guilt, one probably is overstepping personal bounds. If intent is the driving motivation, it’s probably on the unethical side. Any time there’s a need to justify one’s actions, many questions come into play. It’s a personal gray area indeed, involding ethics rather than legalities.
I cringed when I read Glenn’s comment. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should….Unless the plan is to distribute 100 one dollar bills to 100 homeless/hungry people. In that case, I commend Glenn’s creativity & generosity. Glenn, if you are reading this, it’s not too late to do the right thing.
Opening an account just to receive the $100 just doesn’t feel right to me. This country has gone too far in thinking if something is legal, it’s also all right. Not True!
I got the mailer and I have been planning to go use it. I didn’t even think of the ethical side, but now I am. I like the idea of free checks & the other perks my bank does not offer. Now I think that if I do open this account I should use it. Maybe as an emergency account to save up my emergency fund?
I am appalled by Pere’s comment. It is a sad commentary on Americans, for someone to say the American Way is to take advantage, that it is shrewd and commendable. What other questionable actions will be ok with him?
The pharmacy switch doesn’t bother me, of course I never use it, I like getting Rx from one place that is easy to get in and out of with little ones. I would not take the bank offer unless my intent was to actually switch some or all of my banking to WaMu. Years and years ago, my father made my then 12 year old sister return and write an apology to one of the ‘book of the month clubs.’ She signed up for the try it free offer knowing she was going to take the 12 books and cancel. Those are the kinds of ethics we were brought up with and I try to apply that standard to what I do.
Examples I see all over the frugal sites are the people that use multiple computers to print coupons when the intent of the company is to limit you to two prints or people that use multiple rewards cards so they can purchase free items or get rebates. Now, those examples I think are just unethical and would not do.
PS– I don’t have store loyalty anymore to the big chains. I DO have loyalty to my local baker, banker, hairdresser–places with people I know. Maybe I should reconsider loyalty to a chain store to support their business;their local stores are filled with employees from my community. Something new for me to think about…
Call me cynical, but marketing and “rules” are so stacked against the consumer, and take advantage of every weakness and ignorance ofthe average American, that I see no problem with taking advantage when the scales tip the other way. As a 20-year advertising veteran, I can tell you that “non-retention” rates of these offers are always built into the math, expected and forecasted, and the offer is made based on stats that STILL have the proprietor coming out ahead.
So no need to lose sleep over this. That said, the world would be a better place if NEITHER side took advantage. But since, like Vegas, the house wins…go ahead.
Effectively, this is really just a kind of discount offer. What if, instead, WaMu normally charged $150 to open an account, but had temporarily reduced the price to $50? Isn’t that the same thing? The only way you can discount a free service is by giving money out.
What they are expecting is that there will be enough people who do end up sticking with them after the 8-12 weeks, such that the revenue generated from the new customers will offset the $100 payouts to customers who simply cash out and leave when they get the check.
They are very likely counting on your own sense of ethics/guilt/switching costs in order to keep your money in there and, thus, make more money of their own. That’s just the nature of the beast.
Interesting, thought-provoking topic and comments.
Bargain Babe asked: “Is it unethical to purchase a TV or other new gadget if you are not entirely convinced you are going to keep it, but use Costco’s return policy to test out the product?”
I don’t have a problem with that. Sometimes you may not be sure the product suits your needs or purpose, and Costco’s policy permits you to find out. With virtually any product, there is the possibility it may be returned for one reason or another. To my way of thinking, Costco’s policy works in its favor because it generates good will with regard to sincere purchasers who, then, will come back again. However, it would be another story if someone bought a big plasma TV for, say, the Super Bowl with the intent to return it afterward.
If Costco didn’t “win” more than it “loses,” you can bet that policy would have disappeared by now.