3 for 2 offers

[securespark]

Getting paint on a 3 for 2.

2 tins are £37 each.

1 tin is £36.

2 tins are £24 each.

1 tin is £16.

Assuming the free item is always the cheapest, if you put them through the checkout randomly, what would you pay? £134?

If that is correct, we'd be better off putting 3 tins through each. 2 x 37 plus 1 x 36

And 2 x 24 plus 1 x 16.

ie £112.

Does that add up?

 

[ellal]

Does that add up?

Here's another example for you...
(assume you're looking at something like the B&Q 'offers'?)

2.5L at £20, '3 for 2' = 7.5L for £40

5L same paint £26

10L same paint £42

Which is the worst deal?

 

[securespark]

Now add in the quantities:

The 37 pound tins are 10 litres and I need 20 litres.

The 36 pound tin is 2.5 litres and I need 2.5 litres.

I need 11 litres of Shaggy Dog emulsion, but the prices you quote for 2.5 and 5 litres are the Easycare, not the standard emulsion.

I can't find 10 litres of Easycare at 42 pounds at the orange shed.

The 16 pound tin is 2.5 litres and I need 2.5 litres.

 

[conny]

Putting your original paint through as 2 x 37 (=74) plus 1 x 36 FOC = £74 Transaction completed.
Next put through 2 x 24 (=48) plus 1 x 16 FOC = £48 Transaction completed.
74 + 48 = 122 not 112

If you put all 6 through as one transaction it would come out as £134 which was your original figure. This is the figure you would, quite rightly, be charged if you didn't split it into two separate transactions.

 

[Notch7]

I feel a migrane coming on

 

[securespark]

Notch:
conny: Yeah, my mistake, I added up wrong.

But it shows how some people might just put everything through the checkout together and think they got a bargain without actually working it out.

 

[ellal]

But it shows how some people might just put everything through the checkout together and think they got a bargain without actually working it out.

It's amazing how many times that 'use the information you'll find on the shelf to check the price per kg/litre' comes up in a 'top tips for shopping' article...

'Tis lost on most people regarding these 'good deals' though, as mental arithmetic is a dying skill...

And that's why corporates continually repeat such 'good deals'!

 

[EddieM]

Ahh yes, but add into the mix things with 30% extra free, and the printed unit price on shelf can then become misleading.

 

[ellal]

Ahh yes, but add into the mix things with 30% extra free, and the printed unit price on shelf can then become misleading.

Hence the requirement for mental arithmetic ability...

There's no point of course in asking the average shop worker 'how much is that per 'kg/litre?', as they also often lack the relevant skill...

And even if (in the case of the weight of foodstuffs) you do wish to check yourself, then where have all the scales gone?

Dumb down the consumer, and rack up the profits!

 

[securespark]

The most shocking example of this is to reduce the weight or quantity in a pack and simultaneously slam up the price.

Manufacturers of single serving snack foods were handed a licence to con when the Govt insisted on snacks having a reduced calorie count. They did this by reducing the weight and putting up the price.

An individual pack of McCoys used to be 50g, but is now 47.5g. And the price has gone up. They are around 85p per bag, but a six pack (albeit with small bags) on special is £1.

Even multipacks have suffered. Discount retailers now offer multipacks with 5 instead of 6 bags. So you get fewer crisps in a bag and fewer bags in a pack.

Chocolate bars are even worse. Some like Marathon have "lost weight" twice, being reduced once in weight and then reduced again.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing for snacks to be smaller, just that they should also be cheaper too.

It's pure greed to give someone less of something and charge either the same price or more.

 

[ellal]

It's pure greed to give someone less of something and charge either the same price or more.

That's destructive capitalism for you...

Aided and abetted by puppet politicians!

 

[securespark]

I never used to be such a cynic!

 

[Brigadier]

The most shocking example of this is to reduce the weight or quantity in a pack and simultaneously slam up the price.

Manufacturers of single serving snack foods were handed a licence to con when the Govt insisted on snacks having a reduced calorie count. They did this by reducing the weight and putting up the price.

An individual pack of McCoys used to be 50g, but is now 47.5g. And the price has gone up. They are around 85p per bag, but a six pack (albeit with small bags) on special is £1.

Even multipacks have suffered. Discount retailers now offer multipacks with 5 instead of 6 bags. So you get fewer crisps in a bag and fewer bags in a pack.

Chocolate bars are even worse. Some like Marathon have "lost weight" twice, being reduced once in weight and then reduced again.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing for snacks to be smaller, just that they should also be cheaper too.

It's pure greed to give someone less of something and charge either the same price or more.

It's also pure greed to keep shoving crisps and chocolate down one's pie hole

 

[securespark]

I didn't say it wasn't! I'm all for smaller portions as long as you don't end up paying more!

 

[Brigadier]

I didn't say it wasn't! I'm all for smaller portions as long as you don't end up paying more!

Buying is not compulsory, you know