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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.
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.
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)
Yeah but it was never that. Only the original price was changed with a sticker. The 2x and 3x were always as they were.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. In which case the 3x price is redundant.
There is no curve.
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.
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.