Discount stamp advertising plan
69 F.T.C. 1227 · June 1, 1966 · Digest No. 51
source volume section (69 F.T.C. 1227)
Text is machine-OCR of the printed volume and may contain errors. Advisory opinions are the Commission's views on proposed conduct, not binding orders.
No. 51. Discount stamp advertising plan. The Federal Trade Commission has advised that a proposed promotional plan involving the use of discount stamps would not be iJega! if properly implemented.
The requesting party proposes to issue a set of stamps to customers in grocery stores and other types of retai1 outlets in certain trading areas. The stamps wiJ feature particu1ar brands of products. When forwarded affxed to labels, wrappers or boxtops of the products featured, the requester wiJ send a check to the customer in an amount equal to ten cents for each stamp plus ten cents additiona1 if an entire set has been forwarded. Suppliers or products featured would pay the requester for managing the promotion. Grocery store and other operators of retai1 outlets competing in and on the fringes of the trading areas in which the plan is attempted would be offered the opportunity to participate. To this end, such retail outlet operators wou1d be furnished the stamps, promotional kits and money allowances on the basis of their annual dol1ar volume of sales. The advisory opinion said it is the Commission s understanding that although the requesting party wou1d concentrate its promotional efforts on operators of grocery stores it would a1so offer the p1an to operators of other types of retai1 outlets competing in the sale of the products of supplier-advertiser-participants in the promotion and would admonish al1 such supplier-advertiser-participants of their responsibility to accord proportionaly equal treatment to all of their competing customers, whether engaged in grocery retaiJing or other fie1ds. The Commission further assumed that the proposed notices would adequately inform all prospective participants of all detai1s of the offer. The Commission advised that its opinion is that "implementation of the plan as outlined would not be vioJative of Sections 2 (d) or (e) of the Robinson-Patman Amendment to the C1ayton Act. " (FiJe No. 643 7004, re1eased June 1 , 1966. Modified Ju1y 11, 1968, p. 1211 herein.