• Evkob@lemmy.caEnglish
      393·
      10 months ago

      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.

        • Quicky@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          23·
          10 months ago

          Yeah, but only for 1. There would still have been no saving buying 3 over 2.

            • Quicky@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
              38·
              10 months ago

              Yeah but it was never that. Only the original price was changed with a sticker. The 2x and 3x were always as they were.

                • Quicky@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
                  25·
                  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.

          • Lojcs@lemm.eeEnglish
            2·
            10 months ago

            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.

      • Turun@feddit.deEnglish
        11·
        10 months ago

        I’d argue it’s a nice thing to make the costs obvious for people who can’t do multiplication.

      • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1011·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Evkob@lemmy.caEnglish
          65·
          10 months ago

          I’m bitching? About people who can’t do math? That’s news to me. Thank god you were there to tell me!

          • fishos@lemmy.worldEnglish
            212·
            10 months ago

            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.

            • Evkob@lemmy.caEnglish
              62·
              10 months ago

              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.

    • idunnololz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      10 months ago

      Why is this downvoted. I had the same question and I was genuinely confused. Are we not allowed to ask questions :x

  • intensely_human@lemm.eeEnglish
    171·
    10 months ago

    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.

        • Decoy321@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          10 months ago

          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.

  • mckean@programming.devEnglish
    82·
    10 months ago

    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.

        • Madlaine@feddit.deEnglish
          2·
          10 months ago

          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