• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    10 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 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.

    • QuickyOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      10 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        210 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.

        • QuickyOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          10 months ago

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

          There is no curve.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            310 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.

            • QuickyOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              310 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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                110 months ago

                It “solved” the singular and bulk pricing. If they chose a lesser value for the single item, then the more you bought, it’d get more expensive.

                They gave you the cheapest price for quantity. That’s both a scenario and reality.

                • QuickyOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Yes - we don’t know what the original price was for 1x. You’re assuming it was more than £8. It could have been £5 - we’ll never know.

                  Either way, it doesn’t change the current value proposition for the customer, which is that a bulk purchase is meaningless.

                  • th3dogcow
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    29 months ago

                    Let’s say for arguments sake the original price was 10. Now say you wanted to buy three, but there was only two choices: 10 each, or 2 for 16. Then you would end up paying 26. But with 3 for 24 it is still saving you money.