• @squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • QuickyOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        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.

        • QuickyOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Exactly. In which case the 3x price is redundant.

          There is no curve.

          • @squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            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.

            • QuickyOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -11 year ago

              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.

              • @squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -21 year ago

                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.

                • QuickyOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • th3dogcow
                    cake
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    21 year ago

                    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.