You must log in or register to comment.
Where is the midly infuriating part?
How to pay 8 £^2
Move to the planet No Bloke’s Land
Math
Why is this downvoted. I had the same question and I was genuinely confused. Are we not allowed to ask questions :x
Presenting the pricing as if it represents a bulk discount when it doesn’t.
The only reason to do this is to trick people who can’t do multiplication into buying more.
I’d argue it’s a nice thing to make the costs obvious for people who can’t do multiplication.
It probably once did, but they relabeled it.
It only makes sense they did if the origianl price was higher, which is quite weird unless they specifically don’t want people to buy more than 1
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.
gotta jack the price up again to afford more price stickers.
You can clearly see there is a sticker over the original price. It originally probably was a bulk deal that the store reduced to an all around deal.
You’re over here bitching about people who can’t do math and you can’t even see.
I’m bitching? About people who can’t do math? That’s news to me. Thank god you were there to tell me!
Oh, does “bitching” offend you? Would you rather I say “you are so prepared to be annoyed by something that you completely gloss over the facts in front of you so that you can present the situation in a negative light”? Is that better? Ffs, they LOWERED the price and you’re over here spouting Big Capitalism Conspiracies®.
I’m way more worried that there are people like you amongst us than I am of Big Sweater confusing me with multiplication. Maybe worry more about the education system if a tag like that is so confusing to you.
I’m not particularly annoyed by the original post, I was just trying to be helpful and answer the question the other commenter had. Even then, this community is named “mildly infuriating” , you’d think being annoyed would be kinda the baseline.
I will admit I’m a bit annoyed by your tone and approach to conversation, which is probably why my last comment was a bit snarky. I do apologize for that. However, I honestly don’t have the energy to deal with people initiating a discussion with immediate aggression, especially when they decide to read things into my comments that aren’t there. You should try engaging in good-faith conversation sometime, it’s a lot less exhausting than jumping at people’s throats.
Yeah but how much for 4?
Wish I could tell you, buddy
£3… something?
It was pointed out that the first price was higher originally. The funny thing is that in that case the price of four would be nice to know. With the given information it would be economically more efficient to buy two times two if you wanted four vs one times three and then an additional one.
Put your calculators away boys. Looks like the store discovered how math works.
4 for £33
How much for 5?
We haven’t yet discovered the mathematics needed to answer that question
I think I figured it out:
The left number is always going one up, while rights number decrease - starting at two - always halves itself.
Therefore 5 should be 42.5
£ - 8£
£ £8
Ok… But is ££8 more expensive than £8?
Thats 8 square-pounds.
I got a square pound in my pants and I’m not even European.
Well 2 is between 1 and 6, 3 is between 2 and 4. So for 4 I’d say anywhere from 35 to 39 dollars. Which is, itself, a spread of 4 so you know it’s right.
I can’t express the embarrassment I feel from how long it took me to understand this.
Not sure I still do
They’re dissociating the numbers on the right from their normal 2-digit value into being two separate 1-digit values. 16 is not sixteen, it’s a one and six. The value of 2 is between 1 and 6.
Same goes with 3 being between 2 and 4.
Then they do even more delightfully dumb shit when extrapolating this logic to 4.
In reality, the things in OPs image are just $8 a piece.
What I’m saying is that this commenter is a fuckin savant.
