Tuesday, November 18, 2014
How the Lowe's 2x4 Case Has Affected Its Labeling
ProSales Online: Aside from paying $1.6 million, one of the biggest changes resulting at Lowe's from what's been called "the 2x4 case" involves changes in how the big-box dealer labels its building materials. How is that going? To find out, PROSALES visited the Lowe's store in San Bruno, Calif., on Nov. 4 and photographed some of the labels in the lumber section. That visit shows Lowe's already has already begun making adjustments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I guess if there is a big enough group of people that aren't familiar with the nominal names (that buy wood regularly) for this to become such an issue, then it makes sense for the most part. As long as they continue to list the nominal names I don't see the issue. The weird one for me is the <"> becoming illegal. I was under the impression that was common practice, and I wish they would at least put space in between the "in" and the rest. Now those labels look all squished. This whole thing is just so odd to me.
I've heard a lot about this story, and seems like old news to me, but i feel like this is an issue that has gone on for a while and has finally been addressed. I don't think its really about nominal vs actual because i see "2x4" as a name not a description. I don't think the name needs to be fixed and crammed in there.... i think Lowes needs to fix their system and sell the right sized wood. Personally i prefer home depot to Lowes , the main reason being because the employees actually know what they are talking about where as at Lowes an employee thought biscuits were in the paint section... i believe. this article is just another reason for me not to go to Lowes.
I find this very funny because it shows just how many people decide to 'home improve' without going to reliable sources and finding out exactly what is what. The need for these kinds of captions on pieces aren't quite aesthetically pleasing and provide odd information. I do agree that all labels should be regulated, but maybe if these kinds of stores are catering to people who aren't aware of what nominal and actual sizes are, they should have an easier way to relay that information. There is some middle ground to meet on somewhere, but I am unsure where exactly that is.
Why Lowe’s? Why is California just picking on one vendor? Why didn’t they go after Home Depot? Why aren’t they going after other hardware stores and lumber companies? I can only assume that those other stores were labeling their products in a similar fashion, you know…like everyone else in America. When I call my vendor’s to order lumber (almost a daily task here in Carnegie Scenic) I don’t ask my sales rep for one hundred and ninety-two inch by one and a half inch by three and a half inch sticks of number two pine. It’s almost as ridiculous as the fact that I just wrote those measurements out like that… No. I’m going to ask for No2 grade 2” x 4 “ x 16’s. Now I can maybe understand labeling products with ft. and in. abbreviations instead of the ‘ and “ markers, I can see how that might be reasonable. I’ve also been wondering where the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and American Lumber Standard Committee fall on this. Have the People of the State of California and their lawyers read the Voluntary Product Standard PS 20-10, American Softwood Lumber Standard? Does this document that outlines and establishes accepted standard sizes have no weight in a court of law? I would think that since the American Softwood Lumber Standard clearly states that the nominal size of 1.5in x 3.5in lumber is in fact 2in x 4in Lowes would be protected against a lawsuit claiming “unlawfully advertising the building materials. Now I understand that Lowes settled out, probably to avoid the costs that could be incurred from fighting this ridiculous claim, but had they fought it I can only hope they would have won.
From what I understand (which is murky at best), the problem isn't that Lowe's was listing 1.5"x3.5" lumber as "2x4", it was that, among other things, a lot of their lumber was smaller than the minimum standard. If you look at the labels in the article, at least one is narrower than standard 1x4 by 1/16" and they were apparently labelling things in nominal terms that shouldn't be. This seems much more like a "This is why we can't have nice things" case than one of California being overly stringent. California only went after Lowe's because the people who sued only sued Lowe's. Home Depot either hasn't had a problem, or their consumers aren't as grumpy about it.
I don't think it's unreasonable to have retailers whose bread and butter is DIY home owners to be held to higher standards of clarity than retailers selling to professionals. Not knowing a weird quirk of the industry doesn't preclude people from being able to work with lumber themselves.
I'm really upset with the fact that society has gotten to the point that they just try to get money from anywhere possible. I'm not sure if this was the case in the Lowe's case, or if people honestly were just so ignorant that they went into a store where they did not have knowledge that was commonly known within the industry the store markets towards. Honestly, I just don't see how these actual measurements will really help anyone while looking through the store. In many cases the actual measurements result in absurd labels like one of the last ones seen in the article.
I have said this from the very beginning, but this case is idiotic. And the fact that industry standard is the nominal convention and someone wanted to challenge that is ridiculous. On the other hand, i think its stupid that lowes didnt see this coming at all. Its not really that hard for them to list both the nominal and the actual like they do now. As dumb as I think this is, the fact the none of their lawyers foresaw this is also justification for them to be fired. Maybe this care will set a new standard within these types of stores. Its sad that this is the world that we live in that people are constantly having to work to prevent being sued but it is and people need to embrace that.
Post a Comment