QuickyYeah but how much for 4?
Where is the midly infuriating part?
Evkob (they/them)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.
ares35gotta jack the price up again to afford more price stickers.
Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.
But you don’t pay more either. Without the discount on 3 pack, buying odd numbers is more expensive than even numbers but the 3 pack discount makes all bulk purchases equal.
If original price was 9
1 for 9 2 for 18 (deal gives 2 off) 3 for 27 (deal gives 3 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.
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.
th3dogcowLet’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 when n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.
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 when n is substantially close to zero. Latterly reducing the cost of 1 item does nothing except imply a perceived saving.
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
I’d argue it’s a nice thing to make the costs obvious for people who can’t do multiplication.
fishosYou 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.
How to pay 8 £^2
agamemnonymousMove to the planet No Bloke’s Land
FuglyDuck
idunnololzWhy is this downvoted. I had the same question and I was genuinely confused. Are we not allowed to ask questions :x
£ - 8£
HotDogFingies£3... something?
Put your calculators away boys. Looks like the store discovered how math works.
4 for 33£
MashedTechHow 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
Yeah but how much for 4?
Wish I could tell you, buddy
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.
Math can be tricky
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.
What I’m saying, op, is that this commenter is a fuckin savant.
mckeanIt 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.
Ok… But is ££8 mor 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.
Next Generation ™️ apparel teaches math 😄