Staples ‘Deal’ on Google Gone in a Flash
Consumers who shop on Google needs to make sure that the price of the product is the same as when they first saw. Shoppers should also know that Google ranks items in its shopping section in part based on who pays them. So the best product may not be the first one you see
A reader recently alerted us to Google search results for a “PNY Turbo 3.0 USB flash drive — 128 GB” that brings up a sidebar list of five sponsored online stores that sell the product. The best deal appears to come from Staples, which is shown to retail the 128 GB flash drive for $18.99:
But that’s not the price consumers can expect to get from Staples (though it’s fair to assume it is). Clicking the store link sends consumers to another product’s page:
So the $18.99 price tag is actually for a 32 GB flash drive. (Staples’ website does sell the 128 GB flash drive but for $59.99. And it’s currently out of stock.) The Staples product also shows up for a different price in Google’s shopping section, which requires merchants to pony up to Google. It’s the first item on the page and, don’t laugh, labeled “best match.”
It’s unclear if all five of the sponsored online stores that appeared with the search results compensated Google as Staples did. It’s also unclear who’s to blame for the apparent pricing mix-up — whether it’s on Google’s end of Staples’.
But consumers who shop on Google can take away two things: (1) Before you complete an online transaction, make sure the price is the same as when you first saw it for that specific product. (2) Know that Google ranks items in its shopping section in part based on who pays them. So the best product may not be the first one you see.
For more of our coverage on online shopping, click here



David N Rothwell

2 years ago

This is likely to be an error in Staples data feed, and not malicious by Google.

If it was, Google would be violating their own rule of "serve the user first". Too much of this thing would damage the user experience and Google would lose value which is unconscionable to them.

Google also scrutinises the match between what's in the data feed (therefore the shopping ad you see) and what's on the linked destination page. If prices or shipping disagree, the item is disapproved. Too many errors like that will get the entire feed (all products) disapproved. Staples would *not* like that!

There's much more about all this in my book on Amazon "Clicks, Customers, Cashflow - Making AdWords Pay" at

New Rules For Non-profit Hospitals in the US Who Sue Patients
Non-profit hospitals in the US get big tax breaks for providing care for patients who can't afford it. Under new IRS rules these hospitals must take extra steps to inform poor patients they may qualify for financial assistance
Last month, ProPublica and NPR detailed how one nonprofit hospital in Missouri sued thousands of lower income workers who couldn't pay their bills, then seized their wages, all while enjoying a big break on its taxes.
Since then, the IRS has released long-awaited rules designed to address such aggressive debt collection against the poor. Largely because these new rules fill a void — there were hardly any rules at all — patient advocates agree they are a major step forward.
Even so, they have easily exploitable gaps. It remains up to each hospital, for example, to decide which patients the new rules should apply to. And because the rules only apply to hospitals that have been granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, they don't apply to for-profit hospitals or most public hospitals. ProPublica reported last month that public hospitals can be even more aggressive in collecting debt than nonprofits.
Most hospitals in the U.S. are charitable organizations. They don't pay taxes because they are supposed to be a key part of the safety net for the nation's poor patients. In theory, patients who aren't covered by Medicaid and can't afford insurance — or who are underinsured and can't afford their out-of-pocket costs — can receive necessary care from a nonprofit hospital without facing financial ruin. Each hospital is required to offer services to lower-income patients at a reduced cost and to have a financial assistance policy that states who qualifies for aid, known as "charity care."
But while hospitals are required to have this policy, there have been very few rules on how they publicize it or how they treat patients who qualify. That's where the new rules, which go into effect in 2016, will make the biggest difference. The rules were required as part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act.
At Heartland Regional Medical Center in St. Joseph, the hospital featured in our story, many patients had been sued despite apparently qualifying for financial assistance. In interviews, patients either didn't know the hospital had charity care or wrongly believed they didn't qualify.
Under the new rules, all nonprofit hospitals will be required to post their financial assistance policies on their websites and offer a written, "plain language summary" of them to patients when they're in the hospital. If patients don't apply for assistance or pay their bills, then the hospitals are required to send at least one more summary of the policy, along with mentioning it on billing statements.
And if hospitals plan to sue patients over unpaid bills, they must attempt to verbally tell the patients about their policies, as well as send notices that they are planning to sue and that the patients may qualify for financial assistance.
Hospitals that don't take these steps before suing patients could face the ultimate penalty of losing their tax-exempt status.
That sounds clear enough. But the first catch is that the IRS does not have a history of aggressive enforcement.
"That's always been the problem with the charitable hospital rules," said Corey Davis, an attorney with the National Health Law Program, a nonprofit patient advocacy organization. "The IRS doesn't enforce them and nobody else can enforce them."
The second catch is that hospitals are still responsible for setting their own financial assistance policies, and these protections are only helpful to patients who qualify for help.
"There's all sorts of discretion because [hospitals] just have to have a policy," said Chi Chi Wu of the National Consumer Law Center. The rules don't set a baseline for the type of assistance hospitals must provide, she said.
A hospital could limit aid to uninsured patients with income below the federal poverty line — $11,670 for a single person with no dependents. A hospital could also restrict aid to uninsured patients, excluding patients with bare-bones insurance policies who might face huge out-of-pocket payments.
For patients excluded by the policy, all these protections would be effectively moot. Even those covered by the policy might receive some reduction on cost, but still find themselves pursued over the outstanding balance.
The hospital industry's reaction to the new rules has been muted. A spokeswoman for the American Hospital Association said it had no comment. But best practices for the industry, set by the Healthcare Financial Management Association, urge hospitals to take steps beyond the new rules to ensure patients eligible for financial assistance aren't the target of lawsuits. For example, as we noted in our story, some hospitals automatically identify some patients as eligible without them having to apply.
Jessica Curtis, an attorney with Community Catalyst, a national nonprofit consumer organization, joined other advocates in stressing that the new rules were welcome. But, as before, she said, there will be large variation among hospitals in how generously they treat lower-income patients. "It will come down to: How seriously does the hospital take this issue?" she said.


SEBI orders Vijay Kumar Gaba to cease and desist from acting as a portfolio manager

Vijay Kumar Gaba had persuaded an investor, Madan Mohan Sharma, to invest in shares and securities and assured a return of 30% per annum


In a SEBI Order, Vijay Kumar Gaba (VKG) has been directed to cease and desist from acting as a portfolio manager. Further,  the SEBI Order has said that steps have to be taken to prevent VKG from soliciting and collecting funds from investors and carrying on portfolio management services without due registration from SEBI. It becomes necessary for SEBI to take urgent preventive action. “In the light of the same, I find there is no other alternative but to take recourse through an ad interim ex-parte order against VKG for preventing him from collecting funds and offering portfolio management activities without obtaining registration from SEBI in accordance with the law,” said the SEBI Order.
SEBI has a statutory duty to protect the interests of investors in securities and promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market. Section 11 of the SEBI Act has empowered it to take such measures as it deems fit for fulfilling its legislative mandate enshrined in SEBI Act read with PMS Regulations for the purpose of investor protection.
Regulation 2(cb) of PMS Regulations reads as: “portfolio manager” means any person who pursuant to a contract or arrangement with a client, advises or directs or undertakes on behalf of the client (whether as a discretionary portfolio manager or otherwise) the management or administration of a portfolio of securities or the funds of the client, as the case may be.
SEBI received a complaint from Madan Mohan Sharma against  VKG and Master Capital Services Limited (MCSL) alleging inter alia that VKG persuaded Sharma to invest in shares and securities and assured a return of 30% per annum. Sharma has also alleged that VKG and MCSL connived and cheated Sharma to the tune of Rs6.60 crore.
Sharma in his complaint said, “Initially, I was not interested and was hesitant in making investment, but due to his representation and categorical assurance of giving 30% return on the principal amount irrespective of the fluctuation of the market and saying that he and his trading member would be liable as he is taking my money, I handed over different cheques of total Rs5.85 crore from 01.07.2006 to 22.09.2006 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Khan Market, New Delhi to Vijay Kumar Gaba. I had not filled the name of the payee in the cheques, only signed. Thereafter, Vijay Gaba took various signatures on various blank forms and on query replied that these are just formality. He further took Rs1 crore in the month of October 2007 which was also given through 2 cheques of Rs50 lakh each. The undersigned has paid Rs3,15,000/- to VKG in the first week of October 2006 as his fee through cheque. On demand of 30% return as promised by VKG, he started buying time and wrote me several letters and undertaking admitting his liability and promised to pay the amount. Ultimately on 10.12.2010 he executed a mutual agreement wherein he has again admitted his liability and promised to pay the amount in a time bound manner mentioned in the agreement."
In view of Sharma’s complaint, SEBI felt, “I find that these activities are in violation of various provisions of PMS Regulations and could put investors at great risk. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is a likelihood that VKG may continue to carry out this business in contravention of PMS regulations, which may lead to his engaging with more investors in such a manner.”
Finally, SEBI took action on the portfolio manager on the complaint of an investor and did not feel that it was an isolated dispute.


We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

To continue

Sign Up or Sign In


To continue

Sign Up or Sign In



The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)