"Together is our way of saying thank you. Use £10 each month and get 
rewards every 3 months. Visit ???? for details."

Wow, thanks T-Mobile. So if I give you loads of my money, you'll give me 
a little something to say thank you?

...alternatively, how about I just ignore you're generous offer 
completely? :-P

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> "Together is our way of saying thank you. Use £10 each month and get 
> rewards every 3 months. Visit ???? for details."
> 
> Wow, thanks T-Mobile. So if I give you loads of my money, you'll give me 
> a little something to say thank you?
> 
> ...alternatively, how about I just ignore you're generous offer 
> completely? :-P

Credit Card Company Rep:  "Congratulations!  You've been pre-approved 
for our Titanium Card."

Me: "Sorry, but your Titanium Card has been pre-rejected."

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> Credit Card Company Rep:  "Congratulations!  You've been pre-approved 
> for our Titanium Card."

Congratulations! You've been approved for a Nobidium Paladium Card. 
Please fill out the PRIORITY APPLICATION FORM below.

> Me: "Sorry, but your Titanium Card has been pre-rejected."

Gee, really? :-P


Also,

   Congratulations! You've been approved for a £15,000 loan...

WTF? Why would I want that?


Did you hear the story about the guy who sent back an envelope full of 
dimes, just heavy enough to put it into the next postage class, so the 
advertiser had to pay extra duty on it? And when they complained that he 
sent a bunch of dimes rather than a form, he said he did it by mistake, 
and demanded that they *return* the money to him, so they sent him a 
cheque for $0.18 or whatever it was.

Of course, it's probably 100% balony, but it's an amusing story none the 
less.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:

> Wow, thanks T-Mobile. So if I give you loads of my money, you'll give me 
> a little something to say thank you?
> 
> ...alternatively, how about I just ignore you're generous offer 
> completely? :-P

Hmm, yes... Just recently T-Mobile seem to have sent me quite a few text 
messages about various "hey, if you spent a certain amount of money in a 
certain way, we'll give you some free stuff that you can only use under 
certain conditions" type of offers.


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.

Some poor saps will buy just one, and get stung for the cost of 2 even 
though they only bought one. And everybody else will buy 2, and pay the 
normal price for them anyway. And the shop gets to crow about how their 
"brilliant offers" save you money. <insert cynical remarks about the 
manipulation of the population here>

Apparently it's a well-known fact that whether something is presented as 
a cost or a discount has a large effect on consumer behaviour. If you 
say "buy 10 and get a 10% discount", people think that's great. If you 
say "buy less than 10 and get a 10% surcharge" it's not so great. 
(Glossing over the small fact that the two 10% values are percentages of 
different numbers...)

Post a reply to this message

> Hmm, yes... Just recently T-Mobile seem to have sent me quite a few text 
> messages about various "hey, if you spent a certain amount of money in a 
> certain way, we'll give you some free stuff that you can only use under 
> certain conditions" type of offers.

Luckily for me I guess they realise that sending those sorts of messages to 
people on business tarifs is pointless :-)

> Some poor saps will buy just one, and get stung for the cost of 2 even 
> though they only bought one. And everybody else will buy 2, and pay the 
> normal price for them anyway. And the shop gets to crow about how their 
> "brilliant offers" save you money. <insert cynical remarks about the 
> manipulation of the population here>

When I was living in the UK I got a message from Vodafone telling me that I 
should sign up "for free" to their "passport" service, which meant while 
abroad I got cheaper calls or something.  Anyway I thought why not if it's 
free, so I phoned up to activiate the service (as it instructed you to do 
so) and was told I needed to upgrade my account first (obviously this new 
tarif cost twice my current tarif).  After a few back-and-to arguments about 
how this wasn't actually free for me I hung up :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Hmm, yes... Just recently T-Mobile seem to have sent me quite a few 
>> text messages about various "hey, if you spent a certain amount of 
>> money in a certain way, we'll give you some free stuff that you can 
>> only use under certain conditions" type of offers.
> 
> Luckily for me I guess they realise that sending those sorts of messages 
> to people on business tarifs is pointless :-)

It seems business people get all the best stuff, yes.

It's like Norton Antivirus. Install that, and watch your PC slow to a 
crawl. It now takes 20 minutes to boot up, and every time it does you 
can a dozen popup windows telling you that your virus definitions are 
out of date and you haven't run a full scan yet this week, yadda yadda yack.

I mean, seriously, the actual malware might be less of a problem than 
this product!

Now try installing Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition. (Which, by the 
way, you can only purchase in license units of 50 or more. And it's 
*steep*.) Once it's installed, you would never know it's there. By 
default there isn't even an icon in the notification area. The only clue 
it's even there is an entry on the start menu and in add/remove 
programs. There is no noticable affect on system performance, except for 
extremely file-intensive operations. (That's file-intensive, not 
I/O-intensive. Working on 10GB files is no problem; just don't try 
opening and closing 50,000 files per second.)

I guess they figured business customers will switch to an less annoying 
product unless they make it really minimal.

Another nice thing is that you can control it centrally; set whether end 
users can control any of the settings, decide when it should update, 
when (if at all) it should do full scans, etc.

Similarly, my company has just started using something called WUS. It 
seems to allow you to centrally control which Microsoft updates get 
installed, and on which computers. Guy in America presses a button, all 
my PCs lock up for 4 hours, and when they finish they all have service 
pack 3 now. Pretty mental, really.

> When I was living in the UK I got a message from Vodafone telling me 
> that I should sign up "for free" to their "passport" service, which 
> meant while abroad I got cheaper calls or something.  Anyway I thought 
> why not if it's free, so I phoned up to activiate the service (as it 
> instructed you to do so) and was told I needed to upgrade my account 
> first (obviously this new tarif cost twice my current tarif).  After a 
> few back-and-to arguments about how this wasn't actually free for me I 
> hung up :-)

Hmm. So it's "free" if you spend lots more money first?

Yeah, nice try. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible 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.

> Apparently it's a well-known fact that whether something is presented as 
> a cost or a discount has a large effect on consumer behaviour. If you 
> say "buy 10 and get a 10% discount", people think that's great. If you 
> say "buy less than 10 and get a 10% surcharge" it's not so great. 

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.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook 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 think that's actually a law in many US states.

> 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.

Or "we'll forego some of our profit to get rid of this stock we're paying 
rental space to hold, so we can put something more popular there."

-- 
   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 Tue, 26 May 2009 12:31:26 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>  And when they complained that he
> sent a bunch of dimes rather than a form, he said he did it by mistake,
> and demanded that they *return* the money to him, so they sent him a
> cheque for $0.18 or whatever it was.

That's *great*.  I actually have a cheque around here somewhere that's a 
refund from a pay phone.  I was making a local call ($0.25 at the time), 
used my last quarter, and the damned phone ate it.  I called the operator 
and asked for credit, and they asked for an address to mail me a cheque - 
and then I had to place my call *collect*.

Cute, eh?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:31:26 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> Did you hear the story about the guy who sent back an envelope full of  
> dimes, just heavy enough to put it into the next postage class, so the  
> advertiser had to pay extra duty on it? And when they complained that he  
> sent a bunch of dimes rather than a form, he said he did it by mistake,  
> and demanded that they *return* the money to him, so they sent him a  
> cheque for $0.18 or whatever it was.

http://bash.org/?127039

Follow-up:
http://bash.org/?743595


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:31:26 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>> Did you hear the story about the guy who sent back an envelope full of 
>> dimes, just heavy enough to put it into the next postage class, so the 
>> advertiser had to pay extra duty on it? And when they complained that 
>> he sent a bunch of dimes rather than a form, he said he did it by 
>> mistake, and demanded that they *return* the money to him, so they 
>> sent him a cheque for $0.18 or whatever it was.
> 
> http://bash.org/?127039
> 
> Follow-up:
> http://bash.org/?743595

Right. So *definitely* 100% balony then! ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 26-5-2009 20:54, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:31:26 +0200, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>> Did you hear the story about the guy who sent back an envelope full of 
>> dimes, just heavy enough to put it into the next postage class, so the 
>> advertiser had to pay extra duty on it? And when they complained that 
>> he sent a bunch of dimes rather than a form, he said he did it by 
>> mistake, and demanded that they *return* the money to him, so they 
>> sent him a cheque for $0.18 or whatever it was.
> 
> http://bash.org/?127039
> 
> Follow-up:
> http://bash.org/?743595

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.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> That's *great*.  I actually have a cheque around here somewhere that's a
> refund from a pay phone.  I was making a local call ($0.25 at the time),
> used my last quarter, and the damned phone ate it.  I called the operator
> and asked for credit, and they asked for an address to mail me a cheque -
> and then I had to place my call *collect*.

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
;)

Post a reply to this message

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 don't know about that, but I did see a *verified* report about a 
person receiving a final demand for £0.00 from their electricity 
supplier. They got around that my paying in a cheque for £0.00. (Got 
some interesting looks from the people at the bank. And when he 
explained why, they weren't sure if their computer systems could 
actually process the cheque.)

It was on a special about electricity providers doing dumb things. Like 
the women who had just moved house. Opened her first bill, and saw it 
was for £56,000 or something absurd like that. Basically, to use that 
much electricity in just 6 months, the wires to her house would have to 
be molten copper due to the extreme current involved...

(The electricity company suddenly stopped chasing her once it was 
mentioned on TV. Funny, that.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

>> Apparently it's a well-known fact that whether something is presented 
>> as a cost or a discount has a large effect on consumer behaviour. If 
>> you say "buy 10 and get a 10% discount", people think that's great. If 
>> you say "buy less than 10 and get a 10% surcharge" it's not so great. 
> 
> 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. 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.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Or "we'll forego some of our profit to get rid of this stock we're 
> paying rental space to hold, so we can put something more popular there."

That's slightly different. If something isn't selling too well, or if 
it's last season's product or something, they'll maybe do a "clearance". 
But plain tins of baked beans, they always have those in stock. The 10% 
off isn't to help them get the shelf space back; it's to make you buy 
more of them.

Random fact: Last time my sister came to stay at our house, she 
discovered *sixty eight* packs of tea in the building. I'm talking about 
the big packs that last half a year. Basically when they're on sale, my 
mum buys as many as will fit in the trolly (or maybe takes two trollies 
- I am *not* kidding!) and stockpiles them. When they're not on special 
offer, she doesn't buy any.

For tea it works. For, say, icecream... not so much. But she hasn't 
worked that part out yet.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

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] gmailcom> 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

andrel wrote:
> 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.

Someone read the first quote and decided to try it out.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> 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.

Snap!

-- 
   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

> 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.)

Err no, if Tesco are planning to announce a "buy 10 get 10% off" offer, they 
will certainly order a lot more beans accordingly.  Even though you may 
think what you are doing is unique, over the entire shopping population 
there exists a very predictable average of how people will react to such 
offers.  If Tescos couldn't predict that they'd be out of business - and out 
of beans :-)

Post a reply to this message

> Grocery stores have facilities for storing enough tea to sink a ship.

Except they don't, they have the absolute minimum storage to keep the shops 
in-stock.  Any additional storage is wasted money, not just because of the 
building costs, but because the product could be cash instead, earning money 
in the bank.  Ever heard of Just In Time business?

Where I used to work, even if a truck turned up an hour early to deliver 
stuff (which they knew they couldn't, they usually waited in the street) it 
sometimes wouldn't even be possible to unload because there would be no 
empty slots in the warehouse.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Grocery stores have facilities for storing enough tea to sink a ship.
> 
> Except they don't, they have the absolute minimum storage to keep the 
> shops in-stock.  Any additional storage is wasted money, not just 
> because of the building costs, but because the product could be cash 
> instead, earning money in the bank.  Ever heard of Just In Time business?
> 
> Where I used to work, even if a truck turned up an hour early to deliver 
> stuff (which they knew they couldn't, they usually waited in the street) 
> it sometimes wouldn't even be possible to unload because there would be 
> no empty slots in the warehouse.

What a remarkably inefficient way to do business...

Post a reply to this message

>> Except they don't, they have the absolute minimum storage to keep the 
>> shops in-stock.  Any additional storage is wasted money, not just because 
>> of the building costs, but because the product could be cash instead, 
>> earning money in the bank.  Ever heard of Just In Time business?
>>
>> Where I used to work, even if a truck turned up an hour early to deliver 
>> stuff (which they knew they couldn't, they usually waited in the street) 
>> it sometimes wouldn't even be possible to unload because there would be 
>> no empty slots in the warehouse.
>
> What a remarkably inefficient way to do business...

You have a more profitable idea?  Specifying exact delivery times, to within 
+/- 15 minutes is quite common for large factories.  Do you have any idea 
how much raw material a large manufacturing site can get through?  Where I 
worked there were *always* about 3 or 4 trucks delivering material, and 
10-20 being filled simulatenously with finished goods.  It is simply too 
expensive to store enough material and arrange the logistics if you allow 
deliveries to turn up at any time during the day.

Even at my small local supermarket they seem to know exactly when the 
deliveries will be made (they put out cones around the area the truck has to 
reverse).

Post a reply to this message

>> What a remarkably inefficient way to do business...
> 
> You have a more profitable idea?  Specifying exact delivery times, to 
> within +/- 15 minutes is quite common for large factories.  Do you have 
> any idea how much raw material a large manufacturing site can get 
> through?  Where I worked there were *always* about 3 or 4 trucks 
> delivering material, and 10-20 being filled simulatenously with finished 
> goods.  It is simply too expensive to store enough material and arrange 
> the logistics if you allow deliveries to turn up at any time during the 
> day.
> 
> Even at my small local supermarket they seem to know exactly when the 
> deliveries will be made (they put out cones around the area the truck 
> has to reverse).

This doesn't seem to tally with my experience at all. Most shops will 
tell you an item is out of stock and they typically have *no idea* when 
it will be back in stock. Or they promise it will be back in on date X, 
and it isn't, and then they promise date Y, and it doesn't, and then 
they say a delivery is coming in on date Z, but then they say it hasn't 
come in... You start to wonder how they manage to do business at all!

But anyway, while I can imagine a factory being able to predict how much 
raw materials they need on a given day, predicting exactly how many tins 
of baked beans you're going to sell today is obviously impossible. You 
can estimate it of course, but you cannot possibly predict it exactly. 
And if your prediction is too low, you have an empty shelf. This, 
presumably, is commercial suicide.

Similarly, according to your scheme, if one delivery truck gets a flat 
tire, or makes a wrong turn, or drives to the wrong store, or makes any 
one of a million other simple mistakes, empty shelves result. Surely 
this is no way to do business.

Post a reply to this message

> This doesn't seem to tally with my experience at all. Most shops will tell 
> you an item is out of stock and they typically have *no idea* when it will 
> be back in stock.

Most shops are no way near as organised as the likes of Tescos or any large 
manufacturing company.  And by no coincidence, they don't make as profit 
either...

> Or they promise it will be back in on date X, and it isn't, and then they 
> promise date Y, and it doesn't, and then they say a delivery is coming in 
> on date Z, but then they say it hasn't come in... You start to wonder how 
> they manage to do business at all!

Exactly.  But ask the store manager of Tescos when the next pallet of beans 
will be delivered and he will be able to tell you to the nearest 15 minutes.

> But anyway, while I can imagine a factory being able to predict how much 
> raw materials they need on a given day, predicting exactly how many tins 
> of baked beans you're going to sell today is obviously impossible.

Based on your sales of the previous days you can easily get an accurate 
prediction with confidence levels, eg 500 tins +/- 50 with 99% confidence. 
So you order 550 tins and you're 99% sure you'll be ok.  Sure, you'll have 
an average of 50 tins left over, but depending on that figure you can modify 
the quantity of the next order.  The optimising part is to keep the number 
of "left over" tins that you have to store to a minimum whilst ensuring the 
risk of running out of stock is close to zero.  You need to give a "cost" to 
the running out of stock scenario, and calculate what is the optimum.  Do 
not underestimate how much maths and stats is involved :-)

> Similarly, according to your scheme, if one delivery truck gets a flat 
> tire, or makes a wrong turn, or drives to the wrong store, or makes any 
> one of a million other simple mistakes, empty shelves result. Surely this 
> is no way to do business.

What is the chance of any of those things happening?  You estimate an actual 
number (eg by counting the number of flat tyres or times when the truck went 
to the wrong store in the past) and work out how much it is likely to cost 
you.  And then you see it is less than building and running a bigger 
warehouse (well I assume you do, as this is how most large companies work).

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Similarly, according to your scheme, if one delivery truck gets a flat 
> tire, or makes a wrong turn, or drives to the wrong store, or makes any 
> one of a million other simple mistakes, empty shelves result. Surely 
> this is no way to do business.

Tell that to the people delivering concrete, where being a half hour late 
means that the concrete is hardened in the truck and the building you're 
pouring now needs a bunch of work so the new concrete will stick to the old.

-- 
   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

>> Surely this is no way to do business.
> 
> Tell that to the people delivering concrete, where being a half hour 
> late means that the concrete is hardened in the truck and the building 
> you're pouring now needs a bunch of work so the new concrete will stick 
> to the old.

Is it possible for concrete to set while it's still in motion?

But sure, that still sounds like a pretty expensive problem...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Is it possible for concrete to set while it's still in motion?

  I would guess that water cannot remain there for infinity, so the
concrete is going to dry eventually. If it's constantly being disturbed,
I assume what you get is a bunch of concrete gravel.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Is it possible for concrete to set while it's still in motion?
> 
>   I would guess that water cannot remain there for infinity, so the
> concrete is going to dry eventually. If it's constantly being disturbed,
> I assume what you get is a bunch of concrete gravel.

Mmm, seems plausible.

FWIW, as I understand it, it's not the water as such. The setting of 
concrete involves a chemical reaction rather than the mere removal of 
the water.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> FWIW, as I understand it, it's not the water as such. The setting of 
> concrete involves a chemical reaction rather than the mere removal of 
> the water.

  I don't know if disturbing the concrete while it's drying messes up
with those reactions, but if it does, you would probably eventually get
some kind of dust or gravel.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   I don't know if disturbing the concrete while it's drying messes up
> with those reactions, but if it does, you would probably eventually get
> some kind of dust or gravel.
> 

You wind up with a cement truck that you'll have to clean out with a 
jackhammer.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> FWIW, as I understand it, it's not the water as such. The setting of 
> concrete involves a chemical reaction rather than the mere removal of 
> the water.

The evaporation of the water causes the chemical reaction.

To delay the setting, you can add more water, but then you wind up with 
gravel in very runny concrete that doesn't stick. If you don't add water, 
then eventually the concrete will set, even being agigated. It just won't 
stick to anything. You'll have a whole bunch of gravel covered with a thin 
layer of concrete.

-- 
   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

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 the "earlier" means "last week" oslt for them. Anyway, there's 600000
quote-id's between those two, so if bash.org increases them logically,
there's probably a bit more time between them than it seems at first sight.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

>>> Did you hear the story about the guy who sent back an envelope full of 
>>> dimes, just heavy enough to put it into the next postage class, so the 
>>> advertiser had to pay extra duty on it? And when they complained that 
>>> he sent a bunch of dimes rather than a form, he said he did it by 
>>> mistake, and demanded that they *return* the money to him, so they 
>>> sent him a cheque for $0.18 or whatever it was.
>> 
>> http://bash.org/?127039
>> 
>> Follow-up:
>> http://bash.org/?743595
> 
> Right. So *definitely* 100% balony then! ;-)

I sent a bunch of garbage to one of those places, 
but I made sure not to put my address on any of the 
junk in the envelope.
...
A long time ago we had Sprint LD service, one of
the employees stole our credit card number. The
crooks got arested because they used the counterfit
card to pay their own electric bill. Dumb loosers!

Anyway, Sprint got dropped, but several times
in the following years they would bill very small
amounts. We didn't owe it, they just never purged
their system. So here's a bill, you owe us $0.12,
even though you haven't used our service in years,
and when you did, we stole from you.

Post a reply to this message

> Is it possible for concrete to set while it's still in motion?
> 
> But sure, that still sounds like a pretty expensive problem...

Maybe the drivers just carry some of this for emergency use:

http://www.aximconcrete.com/default.aspx?pageid=86&ProductId=80&GroupId=51

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> 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*

I have shopped in a supermarket that often has buy 1 get 1 free offers.
The bill looks like this:
Item £1
Item £1
Buy 1 get 1 free -£1
Total £1

They often sell short dated fresh produce at reduced prices, with the resulting
bill:
Item £1
Reduction -£0.75
Item £1
Reduction -£0.75
Buy 1 get 1 free -£1
Total -£0.50

It makes for interesting and profitable shopping.

Cheers,
Peter

Post a reply to this message

geep999 wrote:

> I have shopped in a supermarket that often has buy 1 get 1 free offers.
> The bill looks like this:
> Item £1
> Item £1
> Buy 1 get 1 free -£1
> Total £1
> 
> They often sell short dated fresh produce at reduced prices, with the resulting
> bill:
> Item £1
> Reduction -£0.75
> Item £1
> Reduction -£0.75
> Buy 1 get 1 free -£1
> Total -£0.50
> 
> It makes for interesting and profitable shopping.

My mum would TOTALLY DO THIS! o_O

I still remember going shopping one time, buying about £250 of food, and 
then handing the cashier a huge lump of coupons. (The look on her face 
was... enough to cause fatalities!) When she finally finished scanning 
them all (one at a time), the bill had gone down to £230. (Which, 
obviously, is still an *absurd* amount of money to spend on food for 
just two people, but hey...)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message