• Quicky@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.

    • Lojcs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      But you don’t pay more either. Without the discount on 3 pack, buying odd numbers would’ve been worse value than even numbers but the 3 pack discount makes all bulk purchases equal.

    • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If original price was 9

      1 for 9

      2 for 18 (deal gives 2 off)

      3 for 27 (deal gives 3 off)

      If it was 10

      1 for 10

      2 for 20 (4 off)

      3 for 30 (6 off)

      • Quicky@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah but it was never that. Only the original price was changed with a sticker. The 2x and 3x were always as they were.

        • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months 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 in purpose to make it easier to move stock.

          • Quicky@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months 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
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months 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.

              • Quicky@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

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

                There is no curve.

                • squirmy_wormy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months 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.

                  • Quicky@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    11 months 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.