Zavvi reply most likely will be to point out they have artwork subject to change on the website
They list this on most steelbook listings especially pre order releases
It's under the buy now on most listings
The mock up used on websites be it Zavvi/Amazon Italy etc are only mock up not actual images of a release a lot do end up close to matching the website mock up but are not actual product image
Sometime the actual release is different to what is shown on a mock up most times with Steelbooks especially it's not known what the actual Steelbook looks for sure until someone gets delivery and then when someone post images we then know
This Steelbook is sold by Amazon Italy and Zavvi UK and other retailers across Europe and Asia
They all are the same Steelbook and have the same spine
The only ones who can answer if the spine is on purpose or a mistake is Paramount UK/Europe/Asia
Paramount USA is a different Steelbook that one is a jumbo and a different release
It could be on purpose the spine not have mission impossible or a mistake by scanavo or paramount sending the wrong details to scanavo
They will be the ones who need to be asked
It's a trade wide release in different countries Zavvi just happen to have UK exclusive of this
Zavvi would have had no input on the design of the Steelbook and only would have seen it when delivered by paramount distributors
Zavvi are covered by having artwork subject to change on the listing on the website
It's not the first or last time a retailer listing will have details missing or not shown to what the actual release itself looks like
They cover themselves by having artwork subject to change
The Steelbook should of had the title on the spine or paramount let the retailers know if they changed the design and provided updated images so customers would know of the change but that's rare that happens
Arrow Video do let all retailers know if a release has a design change but not all companies do this but in my opinion they should do so especially if it's on purpose
Hmmm. Whether they 'cover themselves' by having 'artwork subject to change' on the website is a matter of opinion. The law doesn't see it that way. Their liability is fixed until the statutory limitations come into effect. They are not bricks and mortar, they are e-tailing and are bound by distance selling regulations. They are selling, by precedent, an expressly aesthetic product at a premium price. If they decided to make the steelbook out of wax they will not be entitled to keep selling it as something other than it is. At present, they are selling product which DOES NOT match the artwork with which they are promoting the product. They don't have a defence for doing so. The 'defence' for the 'subject to change' caveat may well apply for 'pre-orders' BECAUSE pre-ordering this product is so artwork-dependent. People are in effect buying the packaging AS a product. Surely no steelbook buyer is naively believing that these are the only available versions of these films and they have no choices?
Placing the caveat does not in any way exempt Zavvi from responsibility for sending out product which is altered from the anticipated design. These titles came into stock days, perhaps a week before they were released to shipment, which was ample time to run off a complaint to Paramount, a delay on shipping or even an email to customers offering the opportunity to cancel before the order was processed.
Way to go, though, making it sound like the 'mock up' design and the 'final' design of the packaging are two utterly remote processes, with the former churned out by an art student and the latter representing the laying on of hands of a professional. They are one and the same thing, and there was always a 95% chance that the artwork would be run with. Removing the title of the film was a profound design change to make, not a marginal one. If it happened, it would have required an explanation as to why this particular film collection needed to be so mysterious as to be anonymous on a shelf.
The art was designed professionally, it was issued, not as a mock-up, but as the anticipated final art on the product, having already passed numerous approval green lights, and only an executive change would have caused it to be altered. Or the dropping of a ball-ock.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is. It doesn't matter how many were produced, in how many territories and which retailers are selling them. In this case there is only one company with any liability for whatever this is… Zavvi. They are the vendor. They undertook a contract of sale, and any customer who is not happy with this package is entitled to a full and complete refund under distance selling regulation and statutory consumer rights, and further, Zavvi are treading dangerous ground in respect of consumer law, because they are STILL advertising the package using the wrong artwork, with no notice or caveat that the product looks significantly different on a library shelf viewing it's display edge, than buyers will anticipate from seeing the artwork on display. They have no excuse for this - as you already said, they display the 'mock up' art for pre-orders, and since we're past pre-orders and into 'stock in hand', the 'mock ups' are no longer valid, the art is no longer subject to change, in fact it HAS been changed but no one is decent enough to notify customers about it.
It isn't for me, the next guy or God's uncle to go and ask Paramount if this is deliberate or accidental, or Scanavo whether they made a mistake. The responsibility for that always lies with the vendor, the person doing the selling. They take my money. Paramount takes theirs. They aren't agents, they are retailers. They can choose not to chase this up with Paramount. But they have no entitlement to keeping anyone's money and are obliged in law to either provide an accomplished product, free of defects, or to arrange the return of their erroneous stock and provide full refunds. Pre-order or not, the customer has the right to see the product he is purchasing, or to be persuaded with the assurance of accuracy, especially when the product is an aesthetically-focused premium item. Just as I would walk into a store, see this, and walk out without buying it; just as some users here have stated that having found out about the error they have no intention to buy until they see a fixed specimen on the shelves, so I also have the right to informed choice.
I'll repeat. Zavvi know about the error, MUST have known about it since the item came in stock, and are STILL selling the item using false artwork and making no reference that collectors may be disappointed or should be aware of a problem.
At every level, it is a choice. In every business there is the opportunity for a QA chain of accountability. There was a signing off process with the cover design. There was a proofing and signing off process at Scanavo. There was a QA at Scanavo. There should be QA at distribution and the first people to see product should have been Paramount. There should be QA and visual proofing at the retail level. Whether they succeeded or not is beside the point. The fact that so many stages and processes across so many service providers managed to miss this is fairly critical to it not happening again.
There is a relatively low-cost solution to the problem - the reissue and replacement of all the spine art. That aside, however, as a consumer I still have the choice of whether I want to pay £40 for a premium-priced purely aesthetic 'collectors item' or 'limited edition' which I then have to go to the trouble of communicating with its distributor over, in order to have a one-shot attempt at actually fixing it to look like it does in their advertising art, by myself because they eff-ed up their own product and couldn't be troubled to make the product good.
If you go to buy a new car and you look at the brochure and pick the model out because you like the look of it, and when it turns up your Mercedes doesn't have the marque on the front, and a blank plate in the middle of the steering wheel, no model numbers on the back, will you happily accept that Mercedes has changed the design because they felt like it, or that they made a mistake, and accept that it isn't the dealer's fault and they're perfectly entitled to keep your money, and you'll give Mercedes a bit of a pester to see if they can do anything?
NO 'Mission Impossible' on the spine and NO inside artwork!!! 
A bullet well and truly dodged on this occasion for me... 
