Live data from Hacker News

The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

thehustle.co

211–220 of 250 posts

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#211
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like bottled beer goes off, so unless you were planning to buy 2 bottles and then never buy beer ever again , I don't see the problem.

It requires more self control not to drink the third one when it's sitting in your fridge than when it's sitting in the supermarket

Easy. Don't put it in the fridge until you know you're going to drink it later that day. Or quick-cool it by dunking in ice water for about a hour.

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#212
post #206
post #38

I tend to make a conscious effort to ignore "deals". As far as I know, the one case in which a deal is actually advantageous as a consumer is when that deal encourages consumers to buy more of a certain product at the same time, and the merchant passing part of the scale and predictability savings on to the consumer. For example, if you buy tooth paste every now and then anyway, buying it at the same time as many oth…

there's a tactic called a loss leader where the merchant has a discount and sells a product at a loss to get people into the store (and hopefully buy other things that make them a profit). Loss leaders are pretty hard to spot unless you actually know the normal retail price

Right - I thought of mentioning it, but then decided it was part of the category "making me buy more expensive things". Presumably, I wouldn't have gone into that store otherwise, e.g. because it's more expensive. A similar trick is selling a certain product (e.g. an ingredient) at a loss, because it is often bought together with more expensive products (e.g. the rest of the ingredients of the typical meal).

Of course, you could still benefit from this if you were to visit that store anyway, or would have bought those products anyway. However, that's still the case in my "ignore deals" strategy: I don't actively avoid deals, I just try not to use them as a reason to buy something.

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#214
post #32

> Most online clothing brands offer ‘free’ shipping, with the catch that you have to meet a minimum purchase amount (often $100) to qualify. Some 58% of consumers will add additional items to their cart — often things they didn’t originally intend to purchase — just to “save” $5 to $10 on handling fees. You will find people vigorously defending their behaviour when challenged on this. For example: Amazon Prime. Amazo…

>Amazon Prime is a product that costs you money and makes you spend more money on Amazon, and yet people will defend their spending saying that they are "saving" money... The shipping is "free" but you have to spend £8 a month to qualify. If you don't spend at amazon during that month you are still down £8 (that's about £100 a year). If you spend something at amazon during the month you are still down the £8 in addition to the money spent at something.

OTOH you also get prime video and music.

Prime Video has a lot of HBO stuff (Sopranos, The Wire, Curb) and while prime music's selection is limited, they have a few great electronic or classical stations for studying (commercial free).

I'm more likely to get rid of Netflix than Prime given all that's bundled in.

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#215
post #62
post #54

The shady economics of a non-functioning close button of an annoying "Subscribe to newsletter" popup. Bottom line: it works but also sends a negative subliminal signal to the visitors that a given business is desperate. Just something for website owners to have in mind.

I increasingly tend to close popups on websites by deleting them from the DOM through dev tools. Not the most user-friendly method, but it's quite thorough.

I have a set of Stylus custom CSS styles I use, including a quite effective "Interstitials and Overlays" stylesheet. It's not applied to all sites, but individually to a large number.

https://pastebin.com/raw/VcgNNwDp

https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://plus.google.com/104092...

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still paying for credit card transaction fees indirectly when you use cash. Since retailers are prohibited from charging discounts for cash purchases then to cover the card fees they raise the price for everyone. Cash buyers end up subsidizing card users.

The fees aren't the point. The point is, using something other than cash tends to trick people into spending more in the same way buy one get one free does.

People being unable to control their impulse to buy something they can't afford is hardly a trick. I would maybe say that a casino that utilizes visuals and sounds and other mental techniques might be "tricking" people, but I can't say the same for credit cards.

All the information is there, in plain english, to allow people to use a credit card simply as a way to keep an electronic ledger, get an interest free loan until the auto pay date, earn some cash back, and have some purchase protection via the ability to do a chargeback. You can even set spending limits online.

Similary, I wouldn't say a buy one get one free offer or 75% off sale sign is tricking anyone either. Assuming you've passed 4th grade, you're stupid if you're not calculating unit prices.

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#217
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What use is it to see the price of the item without knowing the shipping cost? It's better than not knowing the price until I tell them where I live. > It seems to me that what you’re really saying is that they need to know where you live and what kind of shipping you want before they can show you the real price. If they want to include shipping in the price, then yes, they need to know where I live before they can…

My point is that the only “price” that matters in the end is the total amount you pay, with shipping. If shipping is separate then they’re not really showing you “the price,” they’re just showing you a somewhat arbitrary number that sets a floor on the actual price you’ll pay.

> My point is that the only “price” that matters in the end is the total amount you pay, with shipping.

Not at all, how that price is built up is extremely relevant. If an item is cheap but shipping is horrendously expensive, I go look if I can find it at another webshop that has more reasonable shipping. Shipping is part of the total price. Pretending it's not is taking information and choice away from the customer.

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#218
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A long running promotion in Tesco is 3 bottles of any brand beer for £5.25. I can't imagine anyone ever goes into a store with the intention of buying 3 bottles but if you just buy 2 you're misguided into thinking you'll lose out. In reality, you're spending more and drinking more than you really want to.

Having recently moved to the UK, I have noticed some "offers" of this kind in supermarkets where there wasn't actually any advantage over buying the items by themselves. They really must count on people not checking.

> Having recently moved to the UK, I have noticed some "offers" of this kind in supermarkets where there wasn't actually any advantage over buying the items by themselves. They really must count on people not checking.

I've actually seen a couple cases where the bundle "offer" was a worse deal than buying individually (e.g. get one for $1 or a 2-pack for $3). I almost got suckered by it too, because I needed more than one item, so lazy-thinking said a multipack made more sense.

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#219
I suspect a lot of the BOGO deal structure is to exploit the consumer who intentionally buys only what he can use.

Supermarkets here have gotten big on "buy one get (1, 2, or even 3) free" for large meat packages (racks of ribs, for example), but keeping the price tag high-- say $12 per pound. If you fully exploit the offer, you're effectively paying a bargain $3 per pound, but that requires a lot of fridge space to deal with four big packs of perishable meat. The consumer who says "I only need one or two" is being gouged for NOT wanting to throw rancid leftovers away.

A similar related gimmick are the "buy N, save $M deals." If you buy any ten of a pool of random items, they knock off $10 from the order, but if you only need 9, or 1, you're paying full price.

There's definitely been a swing from "everyday low prices" to "gimmicks and games." Everyday low price became "3-day sale" became "only with club card" became "only if you install our terrible app and explicitly select you want the promotion ADDED to your club card."

I think the ultimate goal is to get where they can advertise aggressive discounts, knowing they don't have to give them to anyone but the people most willing to jump through hoops to get them.

Re: The shady economics of ‘buy one, get one free’ deals

#220
post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve heard it’s kinda the opposite. Apparently, lotsa white labeled goods are manufactured in the same plant as the name brand stuff, by that brand, but to differentiate it, the brand will tweak the recipe slightly for the white label run.

I suspect (but never confirmed) that they have some "quality binning" at the factory; the runs closer to set quality get the "main brand" label, the slightly worse get the "value brand" label, etc. That the cheap store brand is made by the same company that makes the expensive brands is true, one only has to check the manufacturer data on the label.

Quality binning is a thing, but not quite like that.

If they do a factory run for "Brand A", adding the label is a component of that run. There's three main outcomes:

- The product passes Quality Assurance / Quality Control, and sold to mainstream retailers

- The product fails QA/QC, but for cosmetic reasons only such as marring on the packaging or label misalignment. These get sold to discount retailers such as Big Lots[1], but still under the main brand.

- The product fails QA/QC due to a reason that makes it ineligible for public sale. Depending on the margins of the product, it may or may not be worth some level of re-work to make it eligible for sale within one of the two bins above. Otherwise, it's either donated (if the product is safe but ineligible for sale due to some regulatory reason such as consumer protection laws around the word "New" on labels) or scrapped (and might be sellable for some industrial use) or destroyed.

But in all cases, it's still "Brand A" and not sold as a completely different inferior brand.

Private label runs are different. A retailer will come to you with a specific set of requirements around ingredients, price points, profit margins, etc and you'll design a formula that matches their requirements[2]. While the manufacturer is leveraging the same machinery, product formulation expertise, and procurement capabilities, the end result may be completely different than any product you actually sell in your name brand portfolio due to differences in priorities and market goals. For example, Costco, Walmart, and Dollar General may be relying on the same manufacturer for their private label trashbags. But decisions on the thickness of the plastic for the bag, whether to use "break protection" patterns on bag design, whether to incorporate draw strings or just little flaps of plastic, whether to package it in a cardboard box or plastic sleeve, etc are all made in coordination with the retailer requisitioning the private label and will end up as a distinctly different product than both the private label runs for other brands as well as the manufacturers own name brand formulations.

Ice cream is a really big one here. You'll notice that it's always sold by volume (fluid ounces) rather than weight (ounces). Manufacturers control the volume of air that gets incorporated into the ice cream, and can use the same amount of product by weight to produce a pint, quart, or half gallon of ice cream. Both within the name brand portfolio of the company and the private label runs, you'll have wildly different end products based not only on the ingredients chosen for a specific formulation but the density chosen as well.

[1] These discounters also tend to get inventory that is perfectly fine, but that didn't turn fast enough and you're willing to let go at a discount to get it out of your warehouses.

[2] You'll also see this within some name brand portfolios as well. You'll see this in the form of retailer-specific model numbers for something. This happens for lots of reasons, from Amazon having specific Alexa functionality incorporated into the version of a product to Walmart demanding a compromise on warranty period or part quality so that they can get to the retail price point they determine is most optimal.

Post reply on HN