 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Can't be a follow up. This is within a day from when it happened (where
> were you earlier? at work) whereas the guy in the first one already has
> the check in hand. So either check was by e-mail or he did the same
> stunt twice with GTE Visa or the order of the events is impossible.
Or they weren't reported/entered in the db in real-time. Neither
specifies an exact date.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> There's some interesting psychology in there. I mean, like, "buy 1,
>>> get one free". Sounds great, right?
>>>
>>> So how about "buy 1, pay for 2 even though you only bought 1".
>>> Suddenly it doesn't sound so great, does it? :-P All they're really
>>> doing is doubling the marked price of the individual item.
>>
>> Uh..."buy 1, get 1 free" doesn't mean "buy 1, pay for 2". it means
>> buy one, pay 1/2. at least, that's how it works at the local grocery
>> store.
>
> I don't follow.
It means if it says "Buy one for $10, get one free", then you can buy one
for $5.
Altho I think that's more like "Two for $10" being "One for $5", now that I
think of it. I'm not sure "buy one get one free" always means you can get
one for half price.
>> Except that's not the same thing at all. Things *cost more* in small
>> amounts. When you buy in bulk, you can get a reduced price because
>> the cost of production *really is* less.
>
> Sure. But your local Tesco is going to buy (and transport) 12,000 tins
> of beans (or whatever) no matter what, so how many of them *you* buy is
> irrelevant.
Not true.
> And yet, if you buy 10 of them, they give you 10% off the
> price. (Or, more accurately, if you buy less than 10 they charge you
> extra.)
If you buy fewer (meaning more people buy the same number), they pay more
rent for storing them, they pay more in credit card transaction fees, they
pay more interest on the money used to buy them in the first place, etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Uh..."buy 1, get 1 free" doesn't mean "buy 1, pay for 2". it means
>> buy one, pay 1/2. at least, that's how it works at the local grocery
>> store.
>
> I don't follow.
Items marked "buy one, get one free" are, in practise, "half off". You
aren't required to take the free item, but since the advertised price
works out to getting X for the normal price of one, they divide the
total price evenly among the items.
> Sure. But your local Tesco is going to buy (and transport) 12,000 tins
> of beans (or whatever) no matter what, so how many of them *you* buy is
> irrelevant. And yet, if you buy 10 of them, they give you 10% off the
> price. (Or, more accurately, if you buy less than 10 they charge you
> extra.)
>
Not quite. Supermarkets do vary how much product X they carry based on
demand. They are required by law to discard anything expired, so if
they consistently have too much, they're losing a *lot* more money.
As for 10% less vs. extra, let's see if I can come up with a useful
thought experiment...
Suppose you start out selling pencils for two cents each. As time goes
by, you find that there are two sorts of customers: one habitually buys
one or two, and another in large batches that are always even multiples
of ten. Now, when *you* order them from the factory, it's in batches of
a thousand. It's more paperwork, hence expense, for you to service the
single-item buyer. The guy who buys in bulk costs you less money. You
decide to encourage him to buy more from you by giving his purchase
habit a discount. Are you charging the singles-buyer are more than
before? No.
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I don't follow.
>
> It means if it says "Buy one for $10, get one free", then you can buy
> one for $5.
>
> Altho I think that's more like "Two for $10" being "One for $5", now
> that I think of it. I'm not sure "buy one get one free" always means you
> can get one for half price.
Round there, the deal is like this:
The item is priced at £10. If you buy one, it costs you £10. If you
buy two, it costs you £10. If you buy three, it costs £20, if you buy
four, it costs £20. And so on.
In other words, the item's "real" sale price is actually £5, but if you
only buy one, there's a 100% surcharge. But they like to phrase it as
"if you buy two, you get the second one absolutely free". (Which,
clearly, is untrue.)
Similar offers include "3 for 2", "buy 9 get 1 free", and so on.
> If you buy fewer (meaning more people buy the same number), they pay
> more rent for storing them, they pay more in credit card transaction
> fees, they pay more interest on the money used to buy them in the first
> place, etc.
Well, I'm not in retail. I very much doubt the things you're talking
about are financially significant, but I don't know. However, I would
strongly suspect that the true reason is simply to convince people to
buy more than they otherwise would (possibly more than they actually
need). Some people (like my mother) mistakenly believe that buying an
item at a lower price per item necessarily equals saving money.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, I'm not in retail. I very much doubt the things you're talking
> about are financially significant,
You're complaining about your mom taking up too much room with her stock of
tea, and you don't think grocery stores have the same problem? ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-5-2009 22:06, Tim Cook wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Can't be a follow up. This is within a day from when it happened
>> (where were you earlier? at work) whereas the guy in the first one
>> already has the check in hand. So either check was by e-mail or he did
>> the same stunt twice with GTE Visa or the order of the events is
>> impossible.
>
> Or they weren't reported/entered in the db in real-time. Neither
> specifies an exact date.
No, but nr 2 ends with 'that sounds damn familiar' which implies that 2
was a conversation after 1 because <crabcakedeathra> is familiar with 1.
At the same time the check indicates that 1 is after 2.
My simple conclusion: at least one is a fake.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26-5-2009 22:47, Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, I'm not in retail. I very much doubt the things you're talking
>> about are financially significant,
>
> You're complaining about your mom taking up too much room with her stock
> of tea, and you don't think grocery stores have the same problem? ;-)
>
Not when his mom is around.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 26 May 2009 15:25:25 -0400, clipka wrote:
> Talking about mentally small cheques: Did you hear about the peple who
> got mail that they owed a company $0,00 - and every attempt to settle
> that debt failed, because... well, how'd you pay $0,00 :P
>
> Some guy finally wrote them a letter claiming to have enclosed the $0,00
> in cash ;)
I hadn't heard that one before. :-)
My second publisher cut my first cheque for $1.86; they won't do that
anymore, if it's less than $25, they roll it forward until the
accumulated total is > $25.
(First publisher never actually cut me any cheques after the advance -
the book didn't actually make the advance back).
The $1.86 cheque is in a frame on one of the bookcases here in my
office. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> You're complaining about your mom taking up too much room with her stock
> of tea, and you don't think grocery stores have the same problem? ;-)
Grocery stores have facilities for storing enough tea to sink a ship. A
domicile does not. :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
news:4a1c4fb5$1@news.povray.org...
> As for 10% less vs. extra, let's see if I can come up with a useful
> thought experiment...
>
> Suppose you start out selling pencils for two cents each. As time goes
> by, you find that there are two sorts of customers: one habitually buys
> one or two, and another in large batches that are always even multiples
> of ten. Now, when *you* order them from the factory, it's in batches of
> a thousand. It's more paperwork, hence expense, for you to service the
> single-item buyer. The guy who buys in bulk costs you less money. You
> decide to encourage him to buy more from you by giving his purchase
> habit a discount. Are you charging the singles-buyer are more than
> before?
Of course. The bulk buyer is the least likely of the two customers to change
their buying pattern in response to minor price changes.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
