Only of you need two of the same thing.
Only if you get two.
I was wanting to buy say, an Enya CD…
I would be happier if I get one for half price, rather than getting two of the same album for full price.
no bc you got enya
Objectively wrong.
The best kind of wrong!
Not at all. Half price for one, versus half price for at least 2…
And you still have to buy an even number. Also, only if all items are the same price.
It’s the same percentage paid for the items. 2 for the price of 1 or 1 for half price.
Lets say i sell you one thing for 5 bucks. And i also want to sell you 100 of the things for 500 bucks. Are these the same deal to you? Why not? The savings are the same no?
I like that you exaggerated the amount. That’s smart, I’d just double it, but your way makes it much easier to understand. Good job Sir.
As everyone has pointed out, only if the plan was always to buy two.
One moves twice as much product as the other.
To be even more precise than the other comments: This is only the same deal if you buy an even number of them.
Not if you want to buy a hammer. BOGO costs you twice as much as -50% and you’d have to carry out two hammers like a madman.
I love how everything is funnier when I’m high
Don’t hammer whilst on drugs kids.
It can be a gateway to ridiculous trousers.
I think they aren’t quite the same: “buy 1 get 1 free” means that you only get a discount if you remove at least 2 units of inventory from the store. If I wanted to encourage people to clear out shelves in order to make space for new inventory (like an entirely new product or the same product but with more distant expiration dates), I might be inclined to use “buy 1 get 1 free” (or something like “buy 3 get 1 free”) rather than just reducing the base price: if someone only gets the discount if they help me clear the shelves it might make our incentives more aligned. A “buy 1 get 1 free” deal might also make it easier to reinterpret statistics: being able to say “we sold 100 units at a price of $2 for each unit (but there was a buy 1 get 1 free deal)” might be more useful than being able to say “we sold 100 units at a price of $1 for each unit”. Also, information about who took advantage of the deal and who didn’t might be interesting (based on what was bought at the same time or tracked with a “loyalty program”), but a constant discount doesn’t make that information available since it applies to everyone equally.
Am I dumb as fuck or is OP just wrong?
Well if you buy two of the thing, then the two deals are functionally the same. However, if you only want to buy one, then it’s not the same thing. One gives you thing at half price, the other makes you spend the same amount as full price but gives you double the product
Yes.
I can only definitively answer on the second part, but i’ll take a gamble on the whole thing.
That’s just wrong.
Easy example: There is an item for $10, but you only have $5.
If the item is 50% off, you can buy it. If it’s a buy 1 get 1 free deal, you can’t.
Y’all, they are not wrong mathematically if you are buying things in pairs, it only doean’t work if you are buyng an odd number of things. So not entirely as wrong as you all seem to be indicating…
Your argument “They’re the same only under specific conditions” only proves they’re not the same.
I was merely saying that those ‘specific conditions’ occur half of the time though, so I do not beleive that is entirely crazy to say they are not so different.
Really?
I had no idea how math/percentages work.
(Yes, that’s sarcasm because no, this isn’t a shower thought, it’s grade-school math).
Would you rather buy a car that’s 50% off, or a car that’s BOGO
Would depend on whether you have use for two cars
No.
Your last name must be Javascript.
