Put your calculators away boys. Looks like the store discovered how math works.
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
392 points (100.0% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
38480 readers
842 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-The Community !actuallyinfuriating has been born so that's where you should post the big stuff.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Where is the midly infuriating part?
Presenting the pricing as if it represents a bulk discount when it doesn't.
The only reason to do this is to trick people who can't do multiplication into buying more.
It probably once did, but they relabeled it.
Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.
If original price was 9
1 for 9
2 for 18 (deal gives 2 off)
3 for 27 (deal gives 3 off)
If it was 10
1 for 10
2 for 20 (4 off)
3 for 30 (6 off)
Yeah but it was never that. Only the original price was changed with a sticker. The 2x and 3x were always as they were.
I know. If the single price was anything other than 8, the other hard coded prices give scaling discounts.
The adjusted price saves you money on a single one and removes the bulk savings. Kinda neat to me. Wonder if that was on purpose to make it easier to move stock.
*Edit: hell, the actual way to look at this is you get bulk pricing without the bulk. This is pretty awesome and mildly interesting if anything.
Does it though? The moment 2x is £16 , the cost of 1 shirt is £8. Therefore there’s no scaling at 3x. It doesn’t matter how much the starting price was or how much the later prices were, if the 2x price is £16 and the 3x price is £24. The cost of 1 shirt is only ever £8 if you buy more than one, meaning that any pricing variant over 2x is pointless.
I'm assuming the £8 is a sticker put in the item and not what it originally said, since it looks raised and like a sticker.
That leads me to believe the original price under the sticker is greater than £8, which makes the discount make sense. And makes it interesting because the lowest a store could set a single unit and maintain the price curve is £8.
Exactly. In which case the 3x price is redundant.
There is no curve.
Well sure - they put one sticker on and it solved everything. Are you suggesting they should have put a sticker to adjust the price of a single item and then also put another sticker on to hide the 3x item? That's not only a waste of stickers and time, it also really doesn't add or remove anything from the situation.
I'd argue you are the mildly infuriating part of this scenario at this point.
I’m not sure what you’re suggesting was solved. You’re positing scenarios whereas I’m presenting facts - the photo. Which, for the consumer, is mildly infuriating.
It "solved" the singular and bulk pricing. If they chose a lesser value for the single item, then the more you bought, it'd get more expensive.
They gave you the cheapest price for quantity. That's both a scenario and reality.
Yes - we don’t know what the original price was for 1x. You’re assuming it was more than £8. It could have been £5 - we’ll never know.
Either way, it doesn’t change the current value proposition for the customer, which is that a bulk purchase is meaningless.
Let’s say for arguments sake the original price was 10. Now say you wanted to buy three, but there was only two choices: 10 each, or 2 for 16. Then you would end up paying 26. But with 3 for 24 it is still saving you money.
Yes I’m aware of this, I’m just saying that arbitrarily speculating on the potential original price for 1 item does nothing to change the current actual situation. If the cost was £10 for 1, I wouldn’t have bothered taking a photo.
Alternatively you could take the viewpoint that Next has already worked out that the price of 1 shirt is a minimum of £8, hence the costings for multiple units. Any price they put over £8 for 1 unit is additional profit, while the expected revenue per unit is £8+n where n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.
Additionally, the 2x and 3x offerings are not, and were never, discounted. The sticker reduces the price of 1 shirt, but if you were in the market for two, there’s no saving based on when you buy them. There might have been a saving originally, we assume, against the cost of buying 1 twice, but that’s irrelevant if you want two shirts at any point. Obviously the pricing would have been to incentivise the purchase of two when you would potentially only have bought one, so that is the driver for the sale, at which point the price per shirt is £8, and remains £8 per shirt for any multiple purchase, both before and after the sticker price amendment.
But you don't pay more either. Without the discount on 3 pack, buying odd numbers would've been worse value than even numbers but the 3 pack discount makes all bulk purchases equal.
gotta jack the price up again to afford more price stickers.
It only makes sense they did if the origianl price was higher, which is quite weird unless they specifically don't want people to buy more than 1
You can clearly see there is a sticker over the original price. It originally probably was a bulk deal that the store reduced to an all around deal.
You're over here bitching about people who can't do math and you can't even see.
I'm bitching? About people who can't do math? That's news to me. Thank god you were there to tell me!
Oh, does "bitching" offend you? Would you rather I say "you are so prepared to be annoyed by something that you completely gloss over the facts in front of you so that you can present the situation in a negative light"? Is that better? Ffs, they LOWERED the price and you're over here spouting Big Capitalism Conspiracies®.
I'm way more worried that there are people like you amongst us than I am of Big Sweater confusing me with multiplication. Maybe worry more about the education system if a tag like that is so confusing to you.
I'm not particularly annoyed by the original post, I was just trying to be helpful and answer the question the other commenter had. Even then, this community is named "mildly infuriating" , you'd think being annoyed would be kinda the baseline.
I will admit I'm a bit annoyed by your tone and approach to conversation, which is probably why my last comment was a bit snarky. I do apologize for that. However, I honestly don't have the energy to deal with people initiating a discussion with immediate aggression, especially when they decide to read things into my comments that aren't there. You should try engaging in good-faith conversation sometime, it's a lot less exhausting than jumping at people's throats.
I'd argue it's a nice thing to make the costs obvious for people who can't do multiplication.
Why is this downvoted. I had the same question and I was genuinely confused. Are we not allowed to ask questions :x
How to pay 8 £^2
Move to the planet No Bloke's Land
Well 2 is between 1 and 6, 3 is between 2 and 4. So for 4 I’d say anywhere from 35 to 39 dollars. Which is, itself, a spread of 4 so you know it’s right.
I can't express the embarrassment I feel from how long it took me to understand this.
Not sure I still do
They're dissociating the numbers on the right from their normal 2-digit value into being two separate 1-digit values. 16 is not sixteen, it's a one and six. The value of 2 is between 1 and 6.
Same goes with 3 being between 2 and 4.
Then they do even more delightfully dumb shit when extrapolating this logic to 4.
In reality, the things in OPs image are just $8 a piece.
What I'm saying is that this commenter is a fuckin savant.
Math can be tricky
Yeah but how much for 4?
Wish I could tell you, buddy
Ok.... But is ££8 more expensive than £8?
Thats 8 square-pounds.
I got a square pound in my pants and I'm not even European.
Then you should change your Depends.
If you're ready to pay for that subscription you wanted.
£ - 8£
£ £8
It was pointed out that the first price was higher originally. The funny thing is that in that case the price of four would be nice to know. With the given information it would be economically more efficient to buy two times two if you wanted four vs one times three and then an additional one.
4 for £33
How much for 5?
We haven't yet discovered the mathematics needed to answer that question
I think I figured it out:
The left number is always going one up, while rights number decrease - starting at two - always halves itself.
Therefore 5 should be 42.5
£3... something?
Next Generation ™️ apparel teaches math 😄